NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL092024_02B52032024-07-09 · 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 operate a U.S.-based marketing consulting company providing business intelligence and digital marketing strategy services to small and mid-sized businesses, including cross-border sales assistance.

Field: marketing consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and its clientele to impact her field”
“she did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render her proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
“The issue here is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “The national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands separate and apart from her education, skills, and job experience”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
  • other · discounted
    “The issue here is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “the benefits were to the companies rather than resulting in broad implications in the 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
  • 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
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) confirming NIW grant/denial is discretionary, joining other circuits on this point. Petitioner's standard-of-proof argument was rejected as unsupported by specific citation to the Director's decision.

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
  • Matter of E-M-
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer