NIW Bearings
dismissedDEC172025_06B52032025-12-17 · 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 sought to found and operate a private conflict-resolution consultancy advising U.S. government agencies, quasi-governmental entities, and private companies on international and domestic conflict management, later shifting emphasis toward cost savings for private-sector clients.

Field: conflict resolution / international conflict management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“It appears the Petitioner misunderstands the national importance standard in the Dhanasar decision.”
“The Petitioner should show more than simply having nominal economic effects and promoting societal welfare”
“The letters offer rhetorical flourish but lack details that might anchor the lofty language”
“she did not provide any objective evidence to corroborate that claim”
“a simple internet search revealed that at least one prominent organization offers services in both sectors”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“she did not demonstrate a record of success in related or similar efforts of founding a consultancy service”
“nor did she offer a detailed plan or what steps she has taken to establish the consultancy service”
“to include securing "[f]unding for my work ... via the standard Request for Proposal (RFP) process or direct proposed services."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “they do not explain what differentiates the Petitioner's proposed plans from what currently exists within others' conflict resolution efforts.”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “nor did she offer a detailed plan or what steps she has taken to establish the consultancy service”
    AAO decision text
  • funding · discounted
    “did not demonstrate ... securing funding for my work”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “the Petitioner did not provide adequate materials to establish her proposed work will impact the field more broadly”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · credited

Where this case turned

  • NEW uniqueness claim unsupported · p1
  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
  • Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
1coded 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 conducted its own internet search to rebut the Petitioner's claim of uniqueness, finding a comparable organization (Mediators Beyond Borders International), and expressly declined to give weight to unpublished AAO decisions cited by the Petitioner. The decision also treats its prong-one and prong-two findings as independent, alternative bases for dismissal while reserving prong three.

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
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.3(c)
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of Ho

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer