NIW Bearings
dismissedDEC172024_03B52032024-12-17 · 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.

The Petitioner sought to establish a data integration consultancy company providing services to small and medium-sized businesses in industries including oil and gas, manufacturing, construction, and biotechnology, initially based in Florida with planned future expansion.

Field: data integration consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“these submissions discuss the industry as a whole and do not specifically address the Petitioner's own proposed endeavor and how it would enhance the existing industry.”
“we focus not on the specific area or field at issue, but the specific endeavor a petitioner proposes to undertake.”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the potential prospective impact of his specific endeavor would impact these fields more broadly, at a level of national importance.”
“the general economic claims made on motion also do not contain sufficient detail or explanation and are not supported by objective, corroborating evidence”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • other · discounted
    “these submissions discuss the industry as a whole and do not specifically address the Petitioner's own proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “these articles are similar to those submitted previously on appeal and initial filing”
    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 AAO explicitly declined to address the Petitioner's prong 2 arguments (diverse professional background, adaptability) because the prior appeal decision had only addressed prong 1, stating 'it is not appropriate for us to consider it here on motion.' The Petitioner also raised a due process-style argument that ambiguous weighing of Dhanasar criteria deprived him of his 'right to regular process,' which the AAO rejected by clarifying that national importance criteria are non-exhaustive and need not each be established.

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

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer