NIW Bearings
dismissedFEB262025_06B52032025-02-26 · 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 special education teacher, proposed to found and lead a multidisciplinary company in Texas providing assessment, intervention, and ongoing support services for children with special needs.

Field: special education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found, and AAO agreed, Petitioner qualified for EB-2 as advanced degree professional based on bachelor's degree and five years of progressive experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The record also does not establish that the employment of 16 to 35 people constitutes job creation on a level commensurate with national importance.”
“The Petitioner acknowledged that Texas is not an economically depressed area.”
“S-Q- does not indicate that the effect of these aspects of the Petitioner's company would extend beyond her company's clients to impact her field more broadly on a level commensurate with national importance.”
“our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of issues within a field in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“F-R-A- does not, however, address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”
“The record does not demonstrate that any of these services are unique, innovative, or otherwise have national or global implications in her field.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “The record does not establish that those services would extend beyond her company's clients to impact her field more broadly”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “does not indicate that the effect of these activities would extend beyond the Petitioner's company's clients to impact her field more broadly”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · credited
  • resume experience · credited

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • 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
  • Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 →

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-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show the endeavor's benefits (jobs, services, innovation) extended beyond her company's own clients to impact the field or nation broadly.

Transferable lesson

Quantify and evidence how the endeavor's impact extends beyond your own clients/company to the broader field, region, or nation—not just that impact exists.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · field_advancement · public_health

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer