NIW Bearings
dismissedFEB152024_03B52032024-02-15 · 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 proposed to own and operate a music studio and production company in Georgia, offering audio recording, mixing, and engineering services, along with some free community music lessons.

Field: sound engineering / music production · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO withdrew the Director's finding that a bachelor's degree alone qualifies as an advanced degree, since the Director failed to assess five years of progressive experience; AAO reserved opinion on whether Petitioner ultimately meets EB-2 classification.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner's proposed endeavor of operating a music studio and production company appears to benefit the Petitioner and the clients or customers to whom the Petitioner would provide his services.”
“the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor of operating a music studio and production company in Georgia, may have "national or even global implications" within the field”
“the record does not establish that employing a total of 12 workers, including the Petitioner, in Georgia, demonstrates "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects"”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the arbitrary, unsubstantiated, contradictory, or otherwise implausible, material information in the business plan casts doubt on its reliability and sufficiency”
“the record does not identif[y] the proposed name of the Petitioner's recording studio, in order to confirm whether the Petitioner has even registered to do business in the State of Georgia”
“the academic transcript...does not...provide sufficient information to establish what "the completion of the Administration Course" may have prepared the Petitioner to do”
“the letters that express interest in receiving the Petitioner's services are dated after the Petitioner filed the Form 1-140...and do not-establish eligibility”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “arbitrary, unsubstantiated, contradictory, or otherwise implausible, material information...casts doubt on its reliability and sufficiency”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · discounted
    “does not...provide sufficient information to establish what the completion of the Administration Course may have prepared the Petitioner to do”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the doubt cast regarding the extent to which the Petitioner performed his responsibilities simultaneously at two locations...undermines the reliability and sufficiency”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “letters that express interest...are dated after the Petitioner filed the Form 1-140...present a new set of material facts that cannot-and do not-establish eligibility”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    “do not elaborate on the content of the two-year, eight-hour, and 40-hour courses...beyond their titles”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • 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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
  • 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
  • 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
746coded 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 withdrew the Director's erroneous threshold finding (bachelor's degree alone = advanced degree) and also withdrew the Director's unsupported one-line concession that prong 1 was met, ultimately finding both prong 1 and prong 2 independently dispositive; extensive quantitative critique of the business plan's revenue growth assumptions (competing multipliers, business-day miscalculation, ignoring 20 competitors) is unusually detailed for an AAO decision.

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 Ho
  • Matter of Izummi
  • Matter of Katigbak
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer