NIW Bearings
dismissedJUN212023_01B52032023-06-21 · 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, an environmental manager with a background in environmental compliance and site assessment for mergers and acquisitions, proposed to work in occupational health and safety in the U.S., assessing worksites, ensuring regulatory compliance, and potentially opening her own consultancy.

Field: environmental management / occupational health and safety · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The record demonstrates that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions with progressive post-baccalaureate experience equivalent to an advanced degree.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“These divergent claims do not pennit us to conclude that she has set forth a specific proposed endeavor as required by Matter of Dhanasar”
“There is some benefit to individual employers or customers, but the Petitioner has not explained how that localized benefit is of national importance.”
“The Petitioner does not elaborate or cite any specific record evidence to support these assertions.”
“Nevertheless, notwithstanding the collective impact of individuals in the Petitioner's field, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • other · discounted
    “The occupation described in that printout, however, appears to be very different from the Petitioner's intended occupation of environmental manager.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “she did not explain how her work protecting the safety and health of workers relates, or provides a solution, to climate change”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “This information does not address or establish the national importance of the work of individuals in the occupation.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · credited

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

The AAO explicitly disagreed with the Director's finding that the endeavor lacked substantial merit, clarifying that substantial merit and national importance are distinct elements under Dhanasar's first prong; the appeal was nonetheless dismissed solely on national importance grounds due to inconsistent/divergent descriptions of the endeavor (worker safety vs. climate change vs. sales/business development vs. independent consultant vs. employee).

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
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer