NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL162024_05B52032024-07-16 · 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, a public bid procurement specialist, proposed to work as a consultant helping U.S. companies win public bidding contracts with the Brazilian government (and vice versa), with a medium-term goal of becoming an executive handling federal government sales or procurement for a large American company.

Field: public bid procurement / international trade consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence to demonstrate how her proposed endeavor would operate, or otherwise to show how her business activities would operate on such a scale as to rise to the level of national importance.”
“We note that the record does not appear to contain a business plan.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “do not address her proposed endeavor or its impact.”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · ignored
    “the record does not appear to contain a business plan.”
    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
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
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

The Petitioner argued the Director applied an incorrect standard of proof, but the AAO rejected this claim, noting the preponderance standard applies and the Petitioner failed to identify any specific misapplication. The AAO also noted the record lacked a business plan despite the Petitioner's assertion that one existed.

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)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
  • Flores v. Garland
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer