NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL032024_05B52032024-07-03 · 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 sought to work as a business developer and quality consultant in the U.S. bottling industry, consulting for a glass manufacturing company and also starting his own bottling company, aiming to bring efficiency, cost, and environmental improvements to bottle production.

Field: beverage bottling industry / quality consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner submitted only a high school diploma plus work experience and certifications; an evaluation equated work experience to a bachelor's degree, but AAO held experience cannot substitute for the required bachelor's degree under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2), so advanced degree professional classification was not established. AAO reserved the exceptional ability argument.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not met his burden of demonstrating the proposed endeavor is of national importance”
“the Petitioner did not provide any supporting evidence corroborating these projected employment and investment figures”
“the Petitioner has not established continuing his work in quality control, resulting in manufacturing performance and efficiency for his clients, rises to the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated through supporting documentation how his endeavor sufficiently extends beyond his prospective client or employees, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • degree · discounted
    “the record does not reflect the Petitioner holds the requisite baccalaureate degree to qualify as an advanced degree professional”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “the Petitioner did not provide any supporting evidence corroborating these projected employment and investment figures”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “the record contains an unsigned contract and consultant invitation from [redacted] to the Petitioner”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letters of support submitted on behalf of the Petitioner regarding his knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the Petitioner cites to an article predicting substantial growth in the beverage bottling and filling industry”
    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
  • Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
  • 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 withdrew the Director's favorable finding on the underlying advanced degree classification, holding experience cannot substitute for a bachelor's degree, but reserved the exceptional ability argument. AAO also noted in a footnote that its de novo review did not appear to support the Director's finding on prong 2, though it declined to further address this given the dispositive prong 1 failure.

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
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer