NIW Bearings
dismissedFEB272024_03B52032024-02-27 · appeal · Nebraska 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 intended to establish an IT consulting business providing advisory and consulting services to U.S. businesses, including software development, technical support, infrastructure monitoring, and related IT services across a broad range of fields.

Field: information technology consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

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

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor; not on the Petitioner's execution of that proposed endeavor.”
“But the letters do not refer to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
“But the Petitioner's professional plan does not go further and identify any specific positive economic effect emanating from their proposed endeavor other than these vague generalized statements made without evidence.”
“But the Petitioner's "economic multiplier effect" assertion is made without citations to any material, relevant, or probative evidence.”
“But this opinion statement does not illustrate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor rises to a level impacting national importance.”
“So we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that their proposed endeavor is of national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letters do not refer to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “it does not sufficiently show how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor's function within that market has global or even national implications”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · discounted
    “are not sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of their proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    “are not sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of their proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the Petitioner's past performance...does not support that endeavor's national importance”
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • other · discounted
    “this opinion statement does not illustrate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor rises to a level impacting national importance”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • 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
  • Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
2,589coded 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 explicitly withdraws part of the Director's reasoning, clarifying that funding source, third-party interest, completed work, and timeline are relevant to prong 2, not prong 1's national importance analysis. AAO also criticizes Petitioner's expert letter author for lacking IT-specific background and for focusing on Petitioner's personal ability rather than the endeavor itself.

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
  • Matter of Caron Int'l
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Matter of Y-B-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer