NIW Bearings
dismissedFEB282025_02B52032025-02-28 · 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 Brazilian civil engineer, proposed to found and direct a construction management company in New York renovating and retrofitting buildings using sustainable, energy-efficient materials and methods, serving both low-income and high-end clients.

Field: civil engineering / construction management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO did not disturb the Director's finding that the Petitioner has an advanced degree.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner's arguments and evidence relate to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than the national importance part.”
“the letter largely focuses on the importance of civil engineers in construction rather than focusing on the national importance of the Petitioner's specific, proposed endeavor.”
“we cannot assess whether this job creation estimate is credible.”
“The record does not show through supporting documentation how his endeavor sufficiently extends beyond his prospective employers or low-income and high-end clients, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the Petitioner's arguments and evidence relate to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than the national importance part.”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letter largely focuses on the importance of civil engineers in construction rather than focusing on the national importance of the Petitioner's specific, proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of providing his services as a construction project manager.”
    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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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 →

Notable

AAO credited substantial merit but found national importance unmet due to unsubstantiated job-creation projections; cites INS v. Bagamasbad and Flores v. Garland (5th Cir.) regarding discretionary nature of NIW, and explicitly frames the decision as resting on independent alternate bases.

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

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer