NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL052024_01B52032024-07-05 · 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, a human resources specialist, proposed to operate her own company offering consulting services to small and medium-sized U.S. businesses to create safer, health-conscious work environments, particularly to help businesses resume post-COVID-19 operations.

Field: human resources / occupational health and workplace safety consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown her proposed endeavor's benefits stand to sufficiently extend beyond her clients and the companies she elects to work with”
“the record does not support the Petitioner's general assertions with corroborating evidence demonstrating the plausibility of those assertions”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“Although an individual's experience, qualifications, contributions, and achievements are material, they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the record does not support the Petitioner's general assertions with corroborating evidence demonstrating the plausibility of those assertions”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “they are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications in her field”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects”
    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
  • 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
2,501coded 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

The AAO expressly framed its national-importance finding as an 'independent and alternate basis' for dismissal despite declining to reach prongs two and three, and cited a Fifth Circuit decision (Flores v. Garland) affirming the discretionary nature of NIW adjudications.

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
  • Flores v. Garland
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer