NIW Bearings
dismissedFEB062025_01B52032025-02-06 · 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, a lawyer, planned to establish a consulting firm in Florida advising U.S. businesses and individuals on Brazilian law in connection with trade and direct foreign investment in Brazil, later expanding to other states.

Field: law/consulting (Brazilian law advisory) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other substantial positive economic effects, or has national or even global implications within his field”
“the Petitioner's business plan did not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of his economic projections, including revenue and job creation, and did not establish the company would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance”
“the record still does not corroborate the claimed job and revenue projections for the proposed endeavor or otherwise establish the Petitioner's own proposed endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “did not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of his economic projections, including revenue and job creation”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “do not speak specifically to the Petitioner's specific endeavor he proposes to undertake and how the proposed endeavor may have national or even global implications”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “submits, in essence, the same brief he submitted on appeal, containing many passages-including entire paragraphs-of verbatim text, generally alleging error”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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

Petitioner cited his 'diverse professional background and experience in different beauty environments' as unique qualification, which the AAO noted was misplaced under prong one (relevant instead to prong two) and did not consider further given prong one's dispositive failure. Also notable: motion to reconsider largely resubmitted the appeal brief verbatim.

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)
  • Matter of Coelho
  • Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer