NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL292024_06B52032024-07-29 · 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 operate his own marketing company providing digital marketing services (content creation, traffic generation, social media management) to small business owners, along with training, seminars, and courses on business development.

Field: digital marketing / business consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor will have broader implications beyond benefitting the Petitioner's clients and companies he elects to work with”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“The Petitioner, however, does not provide sufficient detail regarding these projections' bases, or adequately explain how these staffing targes and revenue forecasts will be realized”
“it is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “does not provide sufficient detail regarding these projections' bases, or adequately explain how these staffing targes and revenue forecasts will be realized”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications in his field”
    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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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 →

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
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to substantiate national importance: job/revenue projections lacked evidentiary support and impact was limited to petitioner's own clients, not the broader field or economy.

Transferable lesson

Support economic-impact projections (job creation, revenue) with credible methodology and evidence, and show impact extends beyond direct clients to the broader field or economy.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer