NIW Bearings
dismissedFEB082024_02B52032024-02-08 · 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 establish a virtual social startup incubator offering consultancy, courses, and training to small entrepreneurs, particularly from vulnerable social groups.

Field: business management / entrepreneurship consultancy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Under Dhanasar, however, the Petitioner must establish the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor, which is narrower than the overall area, field, or industry in which the Petitioner seeks employment.”
“The business plan projects nearly $5.9 million in revenues during the first five years, but this figure concerns benefit to the incubator itself.”
“When determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field that the petitioner will work in but the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner does not claim any experience as an entrepreneur, or running a business incubator.”
“The Petitioner's initial submission did not include any evidence of progress toward achieving the proposed endeavor.”
“But the Petitioner did not identify any investors or show that the company had secured those investments.”
“Because the Petitioner has no evident experience establishing or running a business incubator, and the record does not show that the Petitioner took any concrete steps toward implementing the business plan before filing the petition”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “does not describe the broader impact of the proposed endeavor beyond general assertions about the value of fostering small businesses”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “The letter did not mention the virtual incubator at the heart of the proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “The Petitioner did not explain how this past experience gives her the necessary expertise to establish and manage a virtual incubator.”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    “The Petitioner submitted no further information about this online course to establish its relevance to the proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “this figure concerns benefit to the incubator itself”
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • other · ignored
    “This filing does not represent progress toward achieving the proposed endeavor at the time of 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
  • Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
  • Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
  • No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
  • Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
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 emphasized that experience/evidence gained after filing date (e.g., corporation formed post-RFE, later employment letters) cannot establish eligibility under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1). Third prong expressly reserved.

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. 103.3
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer