NIW Bearings
dismissedJUN252024_01B52032024-06-25 · 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 IT Manager and Engineer, proposed to provide information technology consulting services through his own company, aimed at improving product management and offering online training to American businesses.

Field: information technology / IT management and engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO agreed with Director that Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; not contested further.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he has not provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact rises to the level of national importance”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
“the Petitioner did not present supporting evidence to corroborate the assertions and figures”
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of providing his services as an IT Manager and Engineer through his company”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the Petitioner did not present supporting evidence to corroborate the assertions and figures”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letter does not show the broader impact of the Petitioner's work and is limited to his specific collaborators”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    “does not indicate the national impact of his proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor... not the importance of the industry or profession”
    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

AAO explicitly frames STEM-endeavor national importance analysis, distinguishing IT/product management services (not indicative of broad STEM field impact) from STEM research/technology-advancing endeavors, citing USCIS Policy Manual D.2 for this distinction.

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 E-M-
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer