NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL102024_12B52032024-07-10 · 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 planned to operate his own IT consulting company in Florida providing end-to-end digital transformation services (cloud computing, network security, server/storage solutions) to small and medium-sized businesses lacking in-house technology staff.

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

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner did not establish a single U.S. baccalaureate or foreign equivalent degree; his credential evaluation improperly combined a 2.5-year IT program with work experience to claim degree equivalency, relying on an H-1B-specific regulation with no applicability to EB-2. Exceptional-ability claim was only generally asserted, and AAO reserved ruling on it as well as on prongs 2 and 3 since prong 1 was dispositive.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
“the Petitioner did not establish the significance of this data to show that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
“the Petitioner has not established through supporting documentation how his endeavor sufficiently extends beyond his prospective clients or employees, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the Petitioner did not establish the significance of this data to show that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the Petitioner's expert opinion letter was written in 2018 and describes the Petitioner's company as providing services outside the scope of the endeavor described in this petition”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · discounted
    “the author did not cite to any authority in support of the applicability of such a rule in the EB-2 visa classification context”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “without first establishing that he obtained a single U.S. baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent, having work experience does not meet the regulatory requirement”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • 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
  • 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
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

AAO addressed STEM-specific policy guidance (USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)), noting that generic STEM professional services do not automatically satisfy national importance absent evidence of advancing technologies/research with broad implications. The decision also reserved ruling on exceptional-ability eligibility and prongs 2-3 given the dispositive prong-1 failure, and flagged an outdated (2018) expert letter describing services outside the petition's scope.

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)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
  • Flores v. Garland
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer