NIW Bearings
dismissedFEB202025_02B52032025-02-20 · 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 maintenance engineer, sought to run his own consulting business providing tailored, eco-friendly, and energy-efficient maintenance solutions to clients.

Field: maintenance engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The evidence provided does not demonstrate that this specific endeavor is of national importance.”
“the Petitioner has not adequately described how his maintenance consulting company will have a broader impact on the field beyond his individual clients.”
“the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized, nor does the record contain evidence to support the business plan's financial projections.”
“Yet the Petitioner did not provide documentation to support these statements that the company will result in substantial economic growth on the level of national importance.”
“we find that the record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond his clients to affect the region or nation more broadly.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “they do not stipulate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will contribute to the maintenance engineering field on a nationally important level”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “this type of evidence is more appropriate for the second prong when determining if the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    “The Petitioner does not explain how this evidence is relevant to national importance as it points to the Petitioner's past accomplishments and experiences”
    AAO decision text
  • awards · discounted
    “The Petitioner does not explain how this evidence is relevant to national importance as it points to the Petitioner's past accomplishments and experiences”
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • degree · discounted
    “The Petitioner does not explain how this evidence is relevant to national importance as it points to the Petitioner's past accomplishments and experiences”
    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
  • 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

AAO expressly reserved the threshold EB-2 classification issue and prongs 2/3 as unnecessary, resolving the entire appeal on prong 1 national importance alone; cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) footnote regarding discretionary nature of NIW grants.

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
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer