NIW Bearings
dismissedDEC292022_01B52032022-12-29 · 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, an IT project manager, proposed to continue working as a subcontractor managing IT projects for U.S. client businesses, including training other IT workers and project managers.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director and AAO agreed the Petitioner established eligibility as an advanced degree professional.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the impact of her work would extend beyond that of her employer and its clients to affect the TT field more broadly”
“the Petitioner has not shown that her work as a project manager in a STEM field would affect the field of IT project management more broadly”
“the U.S. Department of Labor's labor certification and Schedule A processes exist for the hiring of noncitizens in occupations”
“the Petitioner has not shown that the state of the U.S. job market for her occupation has bearing on whether her proposed endeavor in that occupation is of national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “these do not demonstrate that this is her innovation or that the broader field would benefit through her use of this methodology”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “her previous work experience is relevant when considering whether she is well positioned to advance her endeavor under the second prong”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the Petitioner has not shown that the state of the U.S. job market for her occupation has bearing on whether her proposed endeavor in that occupation is of national importance”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • 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
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
2,260coded 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 cites Poursina v. USCIS to emphasize the discretionary nature of NIW adjudication and INS v. Bagamasbad to justify declining to reach prongs two and three after finding prong one dispositive.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
  • Poursina v. USCIS
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer