NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL162024_01B52032024-07-16 · 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 work as a human resources representative at a large HR consulting company, advising small- and medium-sized business clients on reducing workplace burnout, stress, and turnover.

Field: industrial and organizational psychology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found, and AAO agreed, that petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“These articles address issues important to industrial and organizational psychology as applied to the workplace, but they do not mention the Petitioner or her specific proposed endeavor.”
“The Petitioner does not establish that her work would extend beyond individual companies to impact employee mental health or the economy more broadly on a level commensurate with national importance.”
“The Petitioner did not indicate that she developed any of these interventions, techniques, systems or assessments, or that her specific work would otherwise have national or even global implications for the field”
“Professor Y- does not, however, indicate that the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would extend beyond the individual companies with which she would work to impact her field more broadly.”
“Professor Y- does not indicate, however, that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects that would extend beyond the individual companies”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “Professor Y- does not, however, indicate that the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would extend beyond the individual companies”
    AAO decision text
  • citations publications · discounted
    “these articles... do not mention the Petitioner or her specific proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “The Petitioner does not establish that her work would extend beyond individual companies”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • 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
  • 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
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 and rejected the argument that the Director failed to discuss all evidence, citing reasoned-consideration case law (Amin v. Mayorkas etc.) to hold that adjudicators need not address every claim or piece of evidence.

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 L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer