NIW Bearings
dismissedJUN182025_03B52032025-06-18 · 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 mining engineer, proposed to work as a planning and project engineer and entrepreneur, directing his own engineering and consulting company incorporated in Florida to provide services to mining and construction companies.

Field: mining and construction engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

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

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner's business plan does not describe the proposed endeavor in detail”
“this claim is not supported by probative and persuasive evidence in the record”
“show the importance of the field of engineering, rather than the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor itself”
“There is no evidence that his endeavor would offer a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, or tax revenue”
“neither the business plan nor these letters show how or establish that his engineering and consulting company would have a broader impact within the field”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “this claim is not supported by probative and persuasive evidence in the record”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “neither the business plan nor these letters show how or establish that his engineering and consulting company would have a broader impact within the field, beyond its own clientele”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “show the importance of the field of engineering, rather than the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor itself”
    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
  • 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
  • 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 AAO noted the appeal brief largely repeated the cover letter and business plan verbatim and did not identify any specific legal or factual errors in SCOPS's decision, though the AAO nonetheless conducted its own de novo analysis and reached the same result.

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
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer