NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL192024_07B52032024-07-19 · 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 lawyer and entrepreneur, proposed to create and lead a Florida-based LLC providing consulting and advisory services on the internationalization of business between Brazil and the United States, including strategic planning, market analysis, regulatory/legal advice, HR consulting, contracts support, and training.

Field: international business consulting / law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Petitioner established equivalent of a US bachelor's degree in law plus over five years of progressive experience, qualifying as an advanced degree professional under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2).

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner does not indicate that her company will operate in an economically depressed area, and she has not established that the projected employment of six people demonstrates significant potential to employ U.S. workers.”
“This business plan does not specify how these amounts were calculated, and the Petitioner does not explain the different financial projections between her two business plans.”
“While these articles discuss the significance of international trade and consulting, our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of a field or industry in general.”
“Here, none of the articles mention the Petitioner, or otherwise address the potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor.”
“The Petitioner does not specify the specialized knowledge that her company would impart or indicate that her company has or will develop strategies that would extend beyond its clientele”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “This business plan does not specify how these amounts were calculated, and the Petitioner does not explain the different financial projections between her two business plans.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of a field or industry in general”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · credited

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
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 submitted two business plans with materially different, unexplained financial projections (net profit of $21,123 decreasing to $4,987 vs. a later table showing over $1,036,800 rising to $1,183,389), which the AAO cited as unexplained and unsupported.

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 L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show her consulting company's projected jobs, profits, and training would extend beyond her own clients to impact the field or economy at a national scale.

Transferable lesson

Quantify and substantiate (with methodology) how the endeavor's economic/job/field impact extends nationally beyond the petitioner's direct clientele—generic industry articles and unexplained projections are insufficient.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · us_competitiveness · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer