NIW Bearings
dismissedJUN022025_01B52032025-06-02 · appeal

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 establish a consulting firm to provide sustainable tourism methods and innovative marketing strategies to small and medium-sized U.S. tourism and hospitality businesses.

Field: sustainable tourism consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record reflects the proposed endeavor fall within one or more of these areas, the Petitioner has established the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor. However, we concur with the Director that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance”
“the endeavor "stands to sufficiently extend beyond ["company, future clientele, or business partnership"] to impact the field or the nation more broadly at a level consistent with national importance,"”
“her consulting firm "would result in significant job growth and/or substantial positive economic effects for the nation."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “stands to sufficiently extend beyond company, future clientele, or business partnership to impact the field or the nation more broadly”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · ignored
  • resume experience · ignored
  • other · ignored

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,501coded 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

Petitioner argued SCOPS mischaracterized her endeavor as merely 'Lodging Management Specialist' and cited Loper Bright to argue against narrow interpretation of petition forms; AAO found SCOPS properly considered the RFE response. Petitioner also incorrectly cited 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h), which the AAO noted pertains to extraordinary ability, not NIW.

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
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer