NIW Bearings
dismissedJAN112024_10B52032024-01-11 · 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, an architectural designer and manager, proposed to start her own small development company in the U.S. providing architectural design, 3D visualization, and marketing services for residential and mixed-use real estate projects.

Field: architectural design and management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director determined Petitioner qualified as advanced degree professional; not contested on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the field of architecture generally, rather than her specific proposed endeavor.”
“The Petitioner does not explain how her company's revenue ($150,00) and job creation (two part-time employees) as stated in the business plan support her claim of "wide-ranging economic, social, and cultural benefits" on a national level.”
“The record does not establish that her proposed endeavor stands to impact the field as a whole.”
“Although we agree that STEM is important to maintaining the national innovation base contributing to the U.S. economy... this does not necessarily establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “does not explain how her company's revenue ($150,00) and job creation (two part-time employees)... support her claim”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “these reports are not specific to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · ignored
  • 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
  • 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
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 explicitly corrects the Petitioner's mischaracterization of the Director's decision (Petitioner claimed Director found no substantial merit, but Director had actually found substantial merit was established); AAO also notes the business was formed five months after filing, implicating the Matter of Katigbak eligibility-at-time-of-filing rule, though this was not the basis for denial. AAO includes a footnote stating that even if it had reached prongs 2 and 3, it would still have dismissed the appeal, adopting the Director's reasoning by reference without independently analyzing those prongs.

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. 103.2(b)(12)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.3
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • Matter of Katigbak
  • Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show her specific small-scale business (two part-time employees, $150K revenue) had impact beyond her own clients, i.e., no national-level significance under prong one.

Transferable lesson

Tie concrete, quantified metrics (revenue, jobs, geographic reach) directly to national-level impact of the specific endeavor, not generic field/industry trends or personal credentials.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

stem_positive_factor · economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · geographic_or_shortage_area

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer