NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL272021_01B52032021-07-27 · 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 human resources specialist with decades of experience, proposed to work for an unspecified U.S. employer performing HR functions such as global mobility, hiring, recruitment, benefits, and personnel management.

Field: human resources · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO concluded he qualifies as a member of the professions with an advanced degree; Director had not addressed this issue.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“But none of these potential widespread benefits are directly linked to the any specific activity proposed by him.”
“the effects of his endeavor would be limited to that company and its employees”
“we do not consider the indirect consequences of a petitioner's activity when determining whether it is of national importance.”
“these activities would support his endeavor rather than contribute to its national importance”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner's plan for advancing his proposed endeavor consists only of his statements that he plans to work for an employer in the U.S.”
“He does not identify a specific area, type or size of employer, or industry in which he would work”
“the lack of evidence of any action to implement his vague plan, the Petitioner's statement of intent is not only insufficient to show his commitment”
“the record does not include evidence to support the paper's influence in the broader field of human resources”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • degree · credited
  • resume experience · credited
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the record does not include evidence to support the paper's influence in the broader field of human resources”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “none of these potential widespread benefits are directly linked to the any specific activity proposed by him”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · ignored
    “the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • 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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
  • Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
  • Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
777coded 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 declined to consider a new/modified endeavor description (volunteering with nonprofits) and new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal, citing Izummi's material-change rule and Soriano/Obaigbena's notice-and-opportunity rule; both prongs 1 and 2 were treated as independent, alternate bases for dismissal.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • INA 291
  • Matter of Izummi

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer