NIW Bearings
dismissedJUN212024_04B52032024-06-21 · 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 sought to work in an executive M&A role at a U.S. private equity fund, investment bank, management consulting firm, or analytic agency advising on mergers and acquisitions in the international oil and gas sector.

Field: mergers and acquisitions in oil and gas industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director and AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies as advanced degree professional based on MBA.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“its national importance was not further corroborated with independent and objective evidence”
“Even ifwe consider the duties, they do not sufficiently establish the specific endeavor.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“the record lacks specific details on the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and how he intends to create jobs and impact the economy”
“it does not establish the broad implications of the specific proposed endeavor outside of his prospective employer”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • other · discounted
    “unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute evidence”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “evidence of the Petitioner's past success and experience is relevant to Dhanasar's prong two analysis”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “working in the industry is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
  • 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
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 distinguishes between evidence relevant to prong 1 (national importance of endeavor) versus prong 2 (petitioner's qualifications/likelihood of success), noting the Petitioner repeatedly conflated the two by citing his personal reputation and past success as proof of 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
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer