NIW Bearings
dismissedDEC092025_02B52032025-12-09 · appeal

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, an aircraft maintenance technician, proposed to found a company developing fuel-efficient aircraft technologies (variable-pitch propellers, new turbines) and sustainable aviation fuels to reduce emissions and fuel consumption.

Field: aviation/aircraft maintenance and technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“By itself: the operation of an aircraft maintenance company does not appear to have national importance.”
“Upon consideration, we conclude that the widespread adoption of improved aircraft engines and aviation fuels could have implications and impacts sufficient to meet Dhanasar's first-prong requirements”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“In the absence of evidence that the company actually existed, with the claimed personnel structure, at the time of filing, we can give no weight to the present-tense assertions”
“the Petitioner did not establish that he had secured any of the necessary funding. An intention to seek such funding in the future does not suffice”
“The Petitioner cites two previously submitted letters from writers who indicated that they had repeatedly worked with the Petitioner, and whose assertions therefore are not independent as claimed.”
“These statements are so broad that it is not readily apparent how they pertain to the proposed endeavor, or his ability to carry forward the endeavor.”
“the business plan is not strong evidence that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
“The Petitioner has not documented any experience developing new aircraft fuels or overseeing a laboratory engaged in such research.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “In the absence of evidence that the company actually existed, with the claimed personnel structure, at the time of filing, we can give no weight to the present-tense assertions”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “they did not address specifics of the proposed endeavor and establish that the Petitioner has not only the skills but also the resources to advance that endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • funding · discounted
    “the Petitioner did not establish that he had secured any of the necessary funding. An intention to seek such funding in the future does not suffice”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “letters discussing the Petitioner's past work as a technician do not directly address the proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    “these materials do not establish 'a record of success or progress' in the specific endeavor”
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • motion resubmission · ignored
    “We will not consider these new details, because the Petitioner must meet all eligibility requirements at the time of filing the petition.”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
  • Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
  • No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
  • Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
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 reversed SCOPS on prong 1 (finding national importance) but still dismissed on prong 2, citing inconsistencies in the business plan including an unexplained CEO name discrepancy (initials J.P. vs Petitioner) and drastically differing cost estimates across three versions of the plan ($10 million vs $2 million vs $450,000), which the AAO found called into question the extent of planning.

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
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
  • Flores v. Garland

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Prong 1 was won, but the business plan described a nonexistent company (even naming a different CEO), no funding of the ~$10M startup costs was secured, and technician experience is not running an R&D enterprise; prong 2 failed.

Transferable lesson

A business plan written as if the company already exists, without proof it does, destroys credibility; secure funding and show founder-level experience, since technician skill is not enterprise positioning.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

critical_emerging_tech · economic_job_creation · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer