NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL152024_05B52032024-07-15 · 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, a civil engineer and project manager, planned to establish his own company in Utah providing project management consulting services for construction, industrial, residential, and infrastructure projects, including affordable housing.

Field: civil engineering / project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not contested on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“it appeared that the benefit of the Petitioner's endeavor would primarily accrue to his future company and prospective clients”
“Although the Petitioner discusses the value and importance of project management, especially in the construction sector, and its impact on the U.S. economy, Dhanasar requires us to focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake," not the importance of the field, industry, or profession”
“the record does not contain sufficient details and supporting evidence to demonstrate how his company will reach the stated economic impact objectives”
“the business plan forecasts total operating expenses to reach over $1.5 million and total sales to surpass $1.7 million in the fifth year of operation, the record does not demonstrate sufficient funds invested in the company”
“the record lacks documentation establishing investment funds have been secured on behalf of the prospective company”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the record does not contain sufficient details and supporting evidence to demonstrate how his company will reach the stated economic impact objectives”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
  • funding · discounted
    “the record lacks documentation establishing investment funds have been secured on behalf of the prospective company”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “the submitted letters indicating interest in working with the Petitioner's company did not contain evidence of financial support”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted

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
  • Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
  • Funding absent · p1 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
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 expressly rejected Petitioner's argument that a plan to hire five workers in five years satisfied the job-creation/economic-effects showing, citing lack of funding and financial detail; also rejected argument that Director imposed a 'novel criterion' beyond Dhanasar.

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 L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer