NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL192023_02B52032023-07-19 · 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 former professor and university administrator, proposed to operate an educational consulting business implementing new learning modalities, AI-based neuroeducation, and a 'Third Social Contract of Education' with U.S. educators, institutions, and government agencies.

Field: education / educational consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he has not shown how the educational consulting services he intends to provide to his clients would have broader implications in the educational field”
“the relevant inquiry is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“The Petitioner's business plan, as contained in his Letter of Intent and additional statement, is very limited and does not include a marketing strategy, staffing, income, salary, or personnel projections”
“the Petitioner has not offered any evidence identifying the area where his company will operate; that it is economically depressed”
“the author does not offer any analysis of the Petitioner's business plan; the specific proposed endeavor and its prospective substantial economic impact”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “is very limited and does not include a marketing strategy, staffing, income, salary, or personnel projections”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “this evidence does not sufficiently show that such benefits ... would reach beyond clients utilizing his services”
    AAO decision text
  • media · credited
  • citations publications · discounted
    “does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific work was cited by others, has introduced advances or improved processes”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “primarily relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which 'shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national'”
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • other · discounted
    “much of the content of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the 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
  • 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
1,358coded 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 reserved both the underlying EB-2 classification eligibility and the third Dhanasar prong (which the Director had also found unmet), resting the dismissal solely on prong 1 as an independent and alternative 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.

  • 8 C.F.R. 103.3
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of Caron Int'l
  • Matter of D-R-
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer