NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL112023_03B52032023-07-11 · 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 social worker, proposed to serve as program director of her own non-profit organization, conducting educational workshops and motivational programs for at-risk and troubled youth in impoverished communities.

Field: social work · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“this evidence does not concern her specific endeavor of organizing workshops in an attempt to socially engage young people”
“the evidence does not show that her company and its activities would have economic impacts beyond the families it would serve”
“such occupational deficiencies are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process and are not a basis for national importance”
“The letters do not articulate how the Petitioner's specific, proposed endeavor has national or global implications beyond those youth and families who will attend her workshops”
“she has not demonstrated that the particular work she proposes to undertake offers original innovations that contribute to advancements”
“the Petitioner's focus on appeal on the importance of providing social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health support to youth in general does not address aspects of the specific endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her own company”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the authors primarily focused on the importance of social work in general and occupational shortages in the field”
    AAO decision text
  • citations publications · discounted
    “this evidence does not concern her specific endeavor of organizing workshops in an attempt to socially engage young people”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “the evidence does not show that her company and its activities would have economic impacts beyond the families it would serve”
    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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • 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

The Petitioner argued the Director applied an incorrect standard of proof, which the AAO rejected as unsupported and confirmed preponderance of the evidence is the correct standard. The AAO also explicitly distinguished occupational shortage arguments from national importance, tying them instead to the labor certification process.

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
  • Matter of Caron Int'l
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer