NIW Bearings
dismissedJUN212024_05B52032024-06-21 · 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, a business manager and marketing specialist, proposed to run a Florida-based startup offering marketing and business management consulting services integrating operations of companies across the U.S., Latin American, and Brazilian markets.

Field: business and marketing consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualified for EB-2 as advanced degree professional; AAO agreed and did not disturb this finding.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish the potential prospective impact of his company.”
“does not discuss any broader impact of the Petitioner's company in his field”
“does not identify any specific investors or other companies or entities that have been or will be serviced by the Petitioner”
“he does not state how many U.S. workers the Petitioner's company would employ or specify other economic benefits his company would create”
“The Petitioner's business plan does not explain the basis for this expansion”
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner or his company, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clientele to impact business management and marketing consulting more broadly”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “does not discuss any broader impact of the Petitioner's company in his field”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “The Petitioner's business plan does not explain the basis for this expansion.”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    “The evidence does not, however, establish the national importance of his firm.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “none of the articles mention the Petitioner or his company, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his 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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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 →

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
  • Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show national importance: letters and articles addressed his skills, past clients, or field generally, not the specific endeavor's scale, employment potential, or broader economic/field impact.

Transferable lesson

Support national-importance claims with concrete, endeavor-specific data (jobs created, revenue, sector-wide influence) rather than generic industry importance or praise for the founder's talent.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_growth_generic · economic_job_creation · us_competitiveness

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer