NIW Bearings
dismissedJAN222019_01B52032019-01-22 · motion_reconsider · 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, an architect, proposed to design, produce, and market a multi-functional bag for retail customers, non-profits, NGOs, and humanitarian purposes (homeless and refugee populations), partnering with organizations and forming a 'worker's cooperative' employing homeless individuals.

Field: architecture / product design · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; this was not disputed on motion.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not include sufficient infom1ation or evidence regarding the number of individuals her product stands to impact”
“the financial forecasts for indicate that the Petitioner's project has growth potential, they do not show that benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic etlects"”
“the record lacks sufficient evidence that this area is economically depressed, that she would employ a significant number of homeless individuals in this area”
“offers broader implications for health and emergency preparedness, border control and immigration, defense, and domestic security”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “they do not show that benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic etlects"”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “she has not identified errors in our previous decision or cited to pertinent precedent decisions”
    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
  • 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
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

Petitioner argued that Dhanasar was applied ex post facto because her petition was filed before Dhanasar issued and NYSDOT should have governed instead; AAO rejected this, noting Dhanasar does not change underlying law and that the Director's RFE and appeal already addressed Dhanasar's framework. AAO also rejected petitioner's attempt to substitute a previously-designed 'leaning chair' from her architectural coursework as her proposed endeavor, since it was not identified as such in the underlying record.

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)(8)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.3(c)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to substantiate the scale of her endeavor's impact—no evidence on population reached, economic depression of target area, or verified job-creation methodology—so prong 1 national importance was unmet.

Transferable lesson

Support impact claims with quantifiable, independently verifiable data (population served, regional economic conditions, forecast methodology) rather than aspirational, self-authored projections.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · public_health · geographic_or_shortage_area

Evidence targeting

endeavor_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer