NIW Bearings
dismissedJUN132024_02B52032024-06-13 · 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 computer software developer, proposed to work as an independent contractor providing software development services—including a panoramic corneal-imaging tool and remote visual acuity test software—to optometric/medical businesses, focusing initially on Florida.

Field: computer software development (optometric/medical software) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner's references to generalized information regarding software development, healthcare, and business do not establish how the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor... may have the type of broader implications”
“the record does not clarify how any other parties... would somehow benefit from the reduction in travel costs for the patients of the Petitioner's clients”
“the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor may have significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
“the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the business plan does not indicate that the proposed endeavor would entail the Petitioner employing anyone other than himself”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “do not address the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, and how the specific endeavor... may have broader implications”
    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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,589coded 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 Director's underlying decision was internally inconsistent (rejected exceptional ability but did not resolve advanced-degree equivalency, then proceeded to the NIW analysis anyway), and the AAO expressly declined to resolve threshold EB-2 eligibility or prongs 2/3, resting dismissal solely on prong 1 national importance.

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 L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer