NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL072021_01B52032021-07-07 · 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 security advisor with a U.N.-affiliated organization, sought to continue counterterrorism/security work and eventually transfer to a Threat and Risk Assessment Unit within the same or related international body.

Field: security management and counterterrorism · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director found the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree based on a bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience; this was not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he did not offer "a detailed description of the proposed endeavor."”
“the issue here is not the substantial merit and national importance of international security operations orD programs the Petitioner has served in the past, but rather the substantial merit and national importance of the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to impact U.S . security interests and counterterrorism operations more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S . workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “"Substantial intrinsic merit" and "national in scope" are terms set forth in the first prong of the vacated NYSDOT framework rather than the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “The Petitioner's education, skills, knowledge, and professional accomplishments relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · discounted
    “the Petitioner's education is a factor that relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar precedent.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the Petitioner has not identified the specific security projects he plans to undertake in the United States or on our country's behalf.”
    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
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

Petitioner's supporting letter used NYSDOT-era terminology ('substantial intrinsic merit,' 'national in scope') which the AAO explicitly distinguished from the Dhanasar first-prong standard. The AAO also rejected a redundant exceptional-ability argument since eligibility was already established via the advanced-degree track, and dismissed the appeal on the alternative independent basis that each stated reason alone supported dismissal.

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)
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • INA 291
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer