NIW Bearings
dismissedFEB152024_02B52032024-02-15 · 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, a software developer and entrepreneur, proposed to run his own IT consulting business providing software development, analysis, and technology solutions to U.S. businesses, and separately referenced a cryptocurrency investment tool project.

Field: information technology / software development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not provide any further details on his methodologies or techniques in improving the information technology (IT) industry or supporting U.S. businesses”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the letter does not include any persuasive and corroborating information about the Petitioner's business and its impact rising to the level of national importance”
“the record did not contain corroborating evidence to explain how these sales and staffing targets will be realized”
“the record does not support the Petitioner's company would operate on such a large scale that would benefit the U.S. economy rising to the level of national importance”
“this evidence only shows the Petitioner's accomplishments in his past engagements and projects and does not sufficiently address the Petitioner's specific future endeavor and its broad impact in his field”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the rest of the record does not sufficiently support the assertions made therein”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “does not sufficiently address the Petitioner's specific future endeavor and its broad impact in his field”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “these documents do not corroborate the nature or numerosity of clients or clients' projects”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “none of the publications in the record discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
    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
  • 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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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 alleged Director negligence/bias and misapplication of Dhanasar due to procedural mishap (former counsel filed under wrong visa category creating duplicate EB-1/EB-2 receipts); AAO found typographical errors in the decision harmless and rejected claims of bias, citing discretionary nature of NIW adjudication. AAO also declined to review Director's unexplained finding that Petitioner met exceptional ability criteria, reserving that issue.

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)(3)(ii)
  • Flores v. Garland
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Matter of O-R-E-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer