NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL192023_03B52032023-07-19 · 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 sought to expand his registered U.S. company providing pet sitting, daycare, boarding, and dog-walking services, leveraging his background in sales, business development, and hospitality.

Field: pet care services / hospitality business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO found the Director erred on the year of the bachelor's degree; upon de novo review the Petitioner established a foreign equivalent bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience, and the Director's finding was withdrawn.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
“the record does not support the Petitioner's small business providing pet sitting and boarding services would operate on such a large scale that would benefit the U.S. economy”
“generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
“the record lacks any evidence of actual investment or official steps towards such investment.”
“The business plan anticipates hiring other managers when other locations open in Florida, but the Petitioner does not discuss the process or plan for developing these other locations.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • degree · credited
  • resume experience · credited
  • business plan · discounted
    “the record does not support the Petitioner's small business providing pet sitting and boarding services would operate on such a large scale”
    AAO decision text
  • funding · discounted
    “the record lacks any evidence of actual investment or official steps towards such investment”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “these letters do not address how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond himself and his customers”
    AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
  • other · discounted
    “merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “they do not indicate any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's business”
    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
  • 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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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 reversed the Director's threshold finding, holding the Petitioner did qualify as an advanced degree professional (correcting an error about the year the bachelor's degree was obtained), but still dismissed the appeal solely on Dhanasar prong 1 (national importance), declining to reach prongs 2 and 3.

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 E-M-
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer