NIW Bearings
dismissedJUN112024_02B52032024-06-11 · 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 Brazilian-trained lawyer with 22 years of tax/corporate law experience, proposed to direct a U.S.-based tax consulting and advisory company serving Brazilian and U.S. enterprises, acting as its Legal Tax Consultant.

Field: legal/tax consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
“the relevant question is not the overall importance of the industry in which the individual will work or the value of immigrant entrepreneurship”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”
“We are not persuaded by the argument that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of workers in his field.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved.”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national.”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “it does not assist him in establishing that he meets the requirements set forth in the Dhanasar framework.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the relevant question is not the overall importance of the industry in which the individual will work”
    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
  • 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

The Petitioner's HUBZone argument was rejected both for lack of evidentiary support (no proof of physical location in the zone) and because the business plan itself indicated he did not qualify for or intend to seek HUBZone status; the AAO also found the Petitioner failed to identify any specific instance of the Director applying a heightened evidentiary standard.

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.

  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of E-M-
  • Matter of Izummi
  • Matter of Katigbak
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer