NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL112024_10B52032024-07-11 · 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, an accountant with expertise in International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), proposed to work as a consultant helping small and medium-sized enterprises adopt and benefit from IFRS.

Field: accounting / IFRS consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Petitioner qualified for EB-2 as an advanced degree professional based on bachelor's degree and five years progressive experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not establish that her specific proposed endeavor has national importance”
“the articles and industry reports do not mention the Petitioner's specific endeavor or discuss its specific implications”
“she does not offer evidence, such as empirical data quantifying what her business's labor growth will be”
“the record does not adequately show through supporting documentation how the Petitioner's services and improvements stand to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective clients”
“the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • media · discounted
    “the articles and industry reports do not mention the Petitioner's specific endeavor or discuss its specific implications”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “she does not offer evidence, such as empirical data quantifying what her business's labor growth will be”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “Evidence of the Petitioner's prior success as an accountant... do not demonstrate the endeavor's national importance”
    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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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 adopted and affirmed the Director's decision under Matter of Burbano while also providing independent analysis; explicitly declined to reach prongs two and three as unnecessary given dispositive prong one failure.

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)
  • Chen v. INS
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer