NIW Bearings
dismissedFEB242022_01B52032022-02-24 · 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 legal analyst and owner of a consulting company, proposed to work with U.S. law firms, businesses, and individuals on cross-border legal, tax, and business matters involving Brazil and Latin America, later reframing this on appeal as focused on rebuilding U.S. small businesses affected by COVID-19 and prioritizing the domestic job market.

Field: legal analysis / international business consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he has not established that his proposed work has implications beyond his current employer (or any prospective employers or self-owned company)”
“he has not shown that his proposed endeavor offers broader implications, significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or substantial positive economic effects.”
“The Petitioner does not specify on appeal which letters of support and articles establish that the specific endeavor has national importance”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
“The Petitioner presents a new set of facts on appeal that do not establish eligibility.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “The letters in the record generally address work the Petitioner performed in the past in Brazil and his prior career accomplishments, not his prospective endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “the articles and industry report in the record provide generalized information about Brazil and industries...but they do not address the Petitioner”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “although the Petitioner's qualifications and prior career accomplishments...are material to the second Dhanasar prong, they do not address how the prospective endeavor may have national importance”
    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
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
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 rejected as a new set of facts the Petitioner's appellate reframing of the endeavor around COVID-19 small-business rebuilding and domestic job prioritization, since these were not part of the endeavor as described at filing in 2018.

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)
  • Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed prong 1: no evidence tied the specific proposed endeavor (not industry generally) to national-level impact; new COVID/job-market claims on appeal were impermissible new facts.

Transferable lesson

Define the endeavor concretely at filing and submit evidence specifically linking that endeavor's prospective impact to national-scale effects, not just personal credentials or industry importance.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer