NIW Bearings
dismissedDEC062024_01B52032024-12-06 · appeal · Texas Service Center

This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.

The petitioner sought to work as chief executive and entrepreneur of his Florida-based company offering travel accommodations, excursions, and prepackaged travel deals to clients through retail and online channels.

Field: travel and tourism business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director found, and the AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor will bring substantial economic benefit that would rise to the level of national importance.”
“The Petitioner, however, does not provide sufficient detail ofthe basis ofthese projections, or adequately explain how these staffing targes and revenue forecasts will be realized.”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his undertaking has implications beyond the companies and clients he elects to work with to impact the U.S. economy on a broad scale rising to the level of national importance.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “does not provide sufficient detail ofthe basis ofthese projections, or adequately explain how these staffing targes and revenue forecasts will be realized.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “generally material to Dhanasar's second prong... but they are generally immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong.”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
1,312coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

The AAO explicitly clarified that a petitioner's individual experience and qualifications are generally immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong, even though relevant to the second, rejecting the Petitioner's attempt to rely on personal expertise to establish national importance.

Authorities this decision leans on

From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.

  • 8 C.F.R. 103.3
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show the specific travel-business endeavor, as opposed to his personal credentials or industry generally, had national-scale economic or other impact.

Transferable lesson

Support prong-1 national importance with substantiated, quantified projections of broad economic/geographic impact, not just personal achievements or industry significance.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_growth_generic · us_competitiveness · economic_job_creation

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer