NIW Bearings
dismissedDEC212022_01B52032022-12-21 · 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 work as a project manager and construction superintendent/consultant in the construction industry, initially for one company and later for another after a change in employment.

Field: construction/project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record contains insufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his specific work”
“the Petitioner has not provided a sufficiently direct connect between his proposed endeavor and any national initiatives”
“much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the importance of the industries and professions named above, rather than his specific proposed endeavor”
“While this evidence demonstrates the magnitude and importance of his work for the company that employs him, we conclude that it does not demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“The record does not suggest that the Petitioner's work would meet the current demand for project managers and civil engineers, address the national shortage in these and related fields”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “we likewise conclude that these factors relate to the Petitioner's eligibility under the second Dhanasar prong”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “this does not establish that the proposed endeavor will broadly impact the field or his profession”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “the Petitioner relies upon the evidence he previously submitted to argue that the Director applied a stricter standard of proof”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
  • 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
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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

AAO sua sponte withdrew the Director's favorable finding under prong 2 in a footnote, noting the Petitioner's new job with a second company began after filing and cannot establish eligibility at time of filing (citing Matter of Michelin Tire Corp.); the Petitioner also failed to explain an unacknowledged change in employer and job title between filing and adjudication.

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. 103.2(b)(8)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.3
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer