NIW Bearings
dismissedJAN272021_01B52032021-01-27 · 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, a dance competitor and instructor, sought to represent the U.S. at major dance competitions and train U.S. dance athletes, aiming to raise the prestige and competitiveness of the U.S. in swing dance.

Field: competitive dance instruction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO found Petitioner met only the recognition-for-achievements criterion; appeal brief failed to specifically challenge the Director's findings on the 10-years-experience and membership criteria, and did not identify supporting evidence.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Here, we conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his future competitions and trainees to impact dancing more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's competitive participation and dance instruction would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “he has not demonstrated that his involvement as a competitor stands to impact his sport or U.S. cultural interests at a level consistent with having national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “his own statement regarding his employment in the field is not sufficient to meet this criterion”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · ignored
    “does not specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact relating to the Director's determinations for these criteria”
    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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,589coded 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 dismissed on two independent alternate bases: failure to establish exceptional ability classification (due to inadequate appeal briefing) and failure of Dhanasar prong 1 on national importance; declined to reach prongs 2 and 3.

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)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • INA 291
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer