NIW Bearings
dismissedJAN042024_07B52032024-01-04 · 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 sought to lead and develop his own company as CEO, providing financial consulting, loans, and collections services to small and medium-sized businesses in Florida.

Field: financial consulting/factoring and loans for small and medium-sized businesses · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director's decision found eligibility based solely on a bachelor's degree, which AAO noted was an incomplete analysis, but AAO agreed eligibility was established because the record also showed five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience equivalent to a master's degree.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the business plan does not adequately support these projections of job and revenue creation.”
“simply claiming membership in a class or occupation is not sufficient to establish national importance”
“the record does not include evidence to support these claims, nor does it contain evidence about the DCI, its source, and its conclusions.”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor would have broader implications in the field of business on the U.S. economy beyond the companies on the receiving end of...services.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“this evidence does not establish a record of success, as it is insufficient to show that these companies thrived, experienced growth, and obtained a positive reputation within their industry”
“the plan mainly focuses on the Petitioner's qualifications, the industry in which it will operate, and broad business concepts applicable to all companies.”
“the Petitioner's assertion that he will provide the initial fonding from his own assets is not supported by documentary evidence of those assets.”
“the letters highlighted in his RFE response are from clients of his Brazilian businesses and do not shown progress or an interest in his proposed business in the U.S.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the business plan does not adequately support these projections of job and revenue creation.”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letters...are from clients of his Brazilian businesses and do not shown progress or an interest in his proposed business in the U.S.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “this evidence does not establish a record of success, as it is insufficient to show that these companies thrived”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “simply claiming membership in a class or occupation is not sufficient to establish national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · credited

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
  • Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
  • Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
  • No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
  • Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
1,358coded 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

The Director's decision found EB-2 eligibility based solely on the Petitioner's bachelor's degree, which AAO characterized as an incomplete analysis, but affirmed eligibility on alternate grounds (five years of progressive experience). AAO found both prong 1 and prong 2 unmet and declined to reach prong 3, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that agencies need not make advisory findings on unnecessary issues.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer