NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL142021_08B52032021-07-14 · 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, an environmental and energy law attorney, proposed to work in the U.S. on sustainable initiatives including conserving local environments and waters, promoting environmentally friendly housing, and cutting greenhouse gases.

Field: environmental and renewable-energy law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found and AAO did not dispute that Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Director concluded that the record does not establish that the endeavor has national importance”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which the individual will work”
“the statements that the Petitioner "has been integral" and the review of the Petitioner's past work and accomplishments are retrospective, rather than addressing how "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake" prospectively may have national importance”
“the letter did not identify probative, independent evidence that corroborates the estimation of "billions of dollars in unnecessary ... costs"”
“the record does not specifically establish the positive economic effects the endeavor-in whole or in part-would have, particularly in an economically depressed area”
“the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letter did not elaborate on how "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake" prospectively may have national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the documents provide context to the issues the Petitioner intends to address... but do not specifically identify the Petitioner and the proposed endeavor”
    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
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 found the Petitioner made misattributed/inconsistent quotations from recommendation letters on appeal, invoking Matter of Ho regarding false statements calling into question the reliability of the remaining evidence, though this was not the dispositive basis for denial.

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.

  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of Ho

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer