NIW Bearings
dismissedJUN032025_01B52032025-06-03 · 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 proposed to direct and oversee her own California-based consulting and auditing company that would help other companies improve operational performance, implement new technologies, and comply with standards and regulations.

Field: business consulting and auditing services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner's articles were not probative because they did not discuss any details relating to her specific endeavor”
“the plan makes various projections for the business, such as in staffing, revenue, and tax projections over five years, without providing any basis for the projections”
“an alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render a proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
“Merely working in an important field or in an area a government entity has described as a priority is insufficient to establish the national importance”
“the expert letter merely restates the Petitioner's assertions with no corroborating details to support the statements”
“the Petitioner did not provide evidence that the area where the company intends to operate is economically depressed”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “contained uncorroborated assertions and therefore did not support the national importance of her proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “merely restates the Petitioner's assertions with no corroborating details to support the statements”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “did not discuss any details relating to her specific endeavor, rather they discussed various industries in general”
    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
  • 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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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

AAO expressly credited substantial merit (disagreeing with SCOPS's non-finding) but still dismissed solely on national importance; expert letter's discussion of petitioner's expertise was redirected as prong-two evidence irrelevant to prong-one analysis.

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

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

The consulting company's methods were never identified or shown to improve on existing practice; the expert letter just echoed her claims, and baseless projections plus a shortage argument failed prong-1 national importance.

Transferable lesson

An expert letter that restates your own claims without corroborating detail is weightless; name the specific methods you will introduce and how they improve on current practice.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_growth_generic · economic_job_creation · government_interest

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer