NIW Bearings
dismissedJAN082025_04B52032025-01-08 · 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 health and safety engineer, proposed to launch a consulting business advising construction and railroad companies on OSHA compliance and workplace injury/death prevention, beginning in Florida and expanding to New Hampshire and Texas.

Field: health and safety engineering (OSHA workplace safety consulting) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found, and record supports, that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of a proposed endeavor without evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of a petitioner's work.”
“The support letters in the record discuss the Petitioner's past professional accomplishments rather than the potential of his proposed endeavor to impact his field more broadly”
“While the Petitioner detailed financial and staffing projections in his business plan, the record does not sufficiently describe the basis for these figures or how they will be realized such that they are sufficient to demonstrate substantial impact.”
“he did not elaborate precisely how he would do this, such as whether he would generate new jobs or train new professionals”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the record does not sufficiently describe the basis for these figures or how they will be realized”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “discuss the Petitioner's past professional accomplishments rather than the potential of his proposed endeavor to impact his field more broadly”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
  • media · discounted
    “industry reports and articles discuss his field generally”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · ignored
All 6 evidence items
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “the Petitioner refers to the evidence he previously submitted”
    AAO decision text

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
  • 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
1,312coded 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 expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, and also declined to address Petitioner's undeveloped argument that the Director applied an improper evidentiary standard.

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
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • Flores v. Garland

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

The claimed data-analytics innovation in safety management had no corroborating evidence, letters covered past accomplishments rather than prospective impact, and the shortage argument was misplaced; prong-1 national importance failed.

Transferable lesson

Corroborate any claimed innovation and explain what each document proves; citing a pile of evidence is not connecting it, and a workforce-shortage argument belongs to prong 3.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

public_health · economic_job_creation · geographic_or_shortage_area

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer