NIW Bearings
dismissedJUN042025_02B52032025-06-04 · 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 and serve as CEO and senior consultant of a global business strategy and financial advisory firm offering management, financial, and operational services to small and medium-sized enterprises.

Field: business consulting/financial advisory for SMEs · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the assessment of national importance is not focused on the importance of principles or fields in general, but "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that expansive work with its clients, as characterized by the Petitioner, would exert broader implications to a relevant field, as directly attributable to the endeavor and rising to the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated the record contains sufficient supporting evidence for his business plan's employment and revenue figures, upon which the Petitioner relies for his RIMS II analysis projections”
“the provided figures, and by extension the RIMS II analysis figures, are not corroborated by probative evidence sufficient to demonstrate it is more likely than not”
“he does not detail these innovations, how these innovations differ from other businesses providing similar services in this field, or how they rise to the level of national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the author does not provide context or details for his assertion that the Petitioner's work has the potential to significantly impact the broader industry”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “the Petitioner has not demonstrated the record contains sufficient supporting evidence for his business plan's employment and revenue figures”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “not corroborated by probative evidence sufficient to demonstrate it is more likely than not”
    AAO decision text

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
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
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

SCOPS had actually found the Petitioner met prongs 2 (well-positioned) and part of prong 1 (substantial merit), denying solely for lack of national importance and prong 3; AAO affirms on national importance alone and expressly declines to reach prongs 2 and 3, treating its own prong-1 finding as fully dispositive despite SCOPS having already conceded prong 2.

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-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

The claim that his consulting would 'raise the bar' for the field was unsupported, the client letter asserted industry impact without context, and the RIMS II projections rested on uncorroborated inputs; prong one failed.

Transferable lesson

An economic model is only as strong as its inputs: RIMS II outputs from unsupported business-plan figures prove nothing, and 'innovative consulting' must be specified, not asserted.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · us_competitiveness · economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer