NIW Bearings
dismissedJAN282026_08B52032026-01-28 · appeal · SCOPS 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 proposed to develop and commercialize a business intelligence platform using maritime trade databases to provide foreign trade analytics, cargo-tracking insights, and security-related data to U.S. government agencies, private sector firms, and universities.

Field: foreign trade consulting and business intelligence / maritime data analytics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS concluded the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions with post-baccalaureate experience equivalent to an advanced degree under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2); not contested on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“The Petitioner did not establish how the activities described above would have sufficiently broad implications to establish national importance.”
“the overall size of that sector of the economy does not convey proportional importance to the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”
“The Petitioner did not submit a copy of that post. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that the blog post contains the information claimed.”
“the importance of maritime security does not necessarily mean that the Petitioner's data platform will have nationally important impact and implications.”
“The submitted letters state in very general terms that the Petitioner's platform is an important contribution, but the letters lack both detail and corroboration.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“the Petitioner did not submit evidence of ongoing operations to demonstrate any progress toward achieving the proposed endeavor.”
“The Petitioner himself claims no background or training in using artificial intelligence to establish a data platform of the type described in the proposed endeavor.”
“The business plan includes some information about the platform and its intended users, but it provides few specific details and does not cite sources for those details.”
“The Petitioner submitted letters from individuals in the shipping industry who praised the concept of the platform, but those individuals did not state that their businesses are in fact using the platform.”
“the correspondence does not show that any of these agencies and entities are using the Petitioner's platform or have taken concrete steps to do so.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “it does not offer any details showing their basis or an explanation as to how they will be realized. Therefore, it is not probative.”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “The submitted letters state in very general terms that the Petitioner's platform is an important contribution, but the letters lack both detail and corroboration.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “they do not directly address or discuss his specific proposed endeavor itself”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “The Petitioner did not submit a copy of that post. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that the blog post contains the information claimed.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “The dates of the message show that the contacts occurred after SCOPS issued the RFE in April 2025, nearly a year after the petition's May 2024 filing date.”
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • resume experience · 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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
  • Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • 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
1,312coded 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 withdrew SCOPS's favorable prong-2 determination sua sponte on appeal, finding the petitioner not well positioned despite SCOPS having concluded otherwise. The business plan was post-dated relative to the May 2024 filing (citing 2025 sources), which the AAO used to undercut its probative value. Government outreach to CBP, DEA, and AAPA Latam was initiated only after the RFE (April 2025) and yielded no concrete interest; the AAPA Latam response was excluded for lack of certified English translation. Prong 3 was expressly reserved under INS v. Bagamasbad.

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer