NIW Bearings
dismissedJUN172025_02B52032025-06-17 · 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, a foreign-trained lawyer, planned to establish a U.S. legal services business assisting startups and small businesses with incorporation, contracts, data privacy, and cybersecurity, including pro bono services for women entrepreneurs and low-income students.

Field: law/legal services and cybersecurity consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“did not sufficiently explain and support with evidence how the petitioner's proposed endeavor would have a national impact on the broad government initiatives discussed.”
“the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated the projections in the business plan are more likely than not to occur.”
“Merely working in an important field, or on consequential issues, is insufficient to establish a proposed endeavor's national importance.”
“the record does not reflect the benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from her work as a lawyer would reach the level of substantial positive economic effects contemplated by Dhanasar.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “did not sufficiently explain and support with evidence how the petitioner's proposed endeavor would have a national impact”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “the Petitioner has not demonstrated the projections in the business plan are more likely than not to occur”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized”
    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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
  • 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 explicitly rejects the Petitioner's allegation that SCOPS merely copy-pasted support letters without analysis, finding SCOPS had in fact identified specific shortcomings; the decision also notes that support letters were properly considered under prong two rather than prong one, and the appeal fails solely on prong one, with the AAO declining to reach prongs two and three.

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 Katigbak
  • Matter of Otiende
  • Matter of Y-B-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer