NIW Bearings
dismissedJUN162022_03B52032022-06-16 · 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 legal analyst, proposed to work for U.S. companies and firms on cross-border legal and tax matters involving the U.S., Brazil, and Latin America, eventually aiming to create her own law firm.

Field: legal analysis / international tax and legal consulting (Brazil-US) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found, and AAO did not dispute, that Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employer and clientele to impact her field or the industry more broadly”
“she has not submitted documentary evidence that would demonstrate that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertakings would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • other · discounted
    “she has not submitted documentary evidence that would demonstrate that benefits to the regional or national economy... would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in her field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
    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
2,501coded 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

AAO explicitly frames its prong-1 finding as an independent and alternate basis for dismissal, though only prong 1 was actually analyzed; prongs 2 and 3 were expressly not reached.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer