NIW Bearings
dismissedDEC092024_02B52032024-12-09 · 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 proposed to establish and direct a Florida-based IT consulting startup providing cloud migration, software development, and system maintenance/support services to clients, eventually growing to 25 employees.

Field: information technology consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability; this was not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest”
“the generalized information does not address the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, and how its potential prospective impact may have the type of broader implications indicative of national importance”
“the issue for determining national importance is not whether a proposed endeavor is within a STEM field but, rather, whether the potential prospective impact of a proposed endeavor-when it is in a STEM field-will have broader implications”
“The record does not otherwise establish how the proposed endeavor-providing information technology consulting services to clients and customers-may otherwise have substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area”
“the business plan's summarization of the proposed information technology consulting services company's wages directly conflicts with the Petitioner's statements on the Form I-140”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the reliability and sufficiency of the Petitioner's descriptions of the business plan specifically, and the record in general, is diminished”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “their reliability and sufficiency are undermined for the reasons explained above”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the generalized information does not address the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake”
    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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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

AAO found an inconsistency between the CEO salary stated on the Form I-140 ($189,520) and the salary in the business plan ($80,000-$97,241), which it used under Matter of Ho to discount the reliability of the business plan and, by extension, the entire record including letters and expert opinions.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.3
  • Matter of Ho
  • Matter of Katigbak
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Matter of V-K-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer