NIW Bearings
dismissedDEC062024_03B52032024-12-06 · combined · 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.

A retired police colonel proposed to provide risk management auditing and security consulting services related to the Business Alliance for Secure Commerce (BASC) supply-chain security standards.

Field: risk management auditing / supply chain security (BASC) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he did not demonstrate that the benefits of his services would extend beyond his clientele on a national level.”
“these submissions discuss the industry as a whole and do not specifically address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, or how the proposed endeavor would enhance the industry.”
“the record lacks details as to any contributions to the BASC standards, improved cooperation between security agencies, or an in-depth analysis of the benefits to the economy”
“the record does not detail the effect of the Petitioner's work on a national level other than to explain that BASC and the implementation of security standards are critically important to the supply chain.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “These articles are similar to those submitted in the initial filing and on appeal.”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “these submissions discuss the industry as a whole and do not specifically address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • 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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,501coded 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 Petitioner argued that the 'teaching analysis' (Dhanasar prong) was inapplicable to his case but failed to specify what alternate analysis would establish eligibility; the AAO rejected this as a mere disagreement with its conclusions rather than a showing of legal or policy error.

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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
  • Matter of Coelho
  • Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer