NIW Bearings
dismissedJUN262023_03B52032023-06-26 · 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 intended to manage a company partnering with another firm to provide water testing, consultation, education, and water-system installation services to residents and businesses in southern Florida, with planned expansion statewide.

Field: water purification / water treatment services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO did not need to fully resolve advanced-degree eligibility since the NIW prong 1 failure was dispositive, but noted significant deficiencies: the academic evaluation was inconsistent and did not clearly equate the Petitioner's foreign education to a U.S. advanced degree, and experience letters lacked required detail under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1). AAO advised the Petitioner to address these issues in future EB-2 proceedings.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

the business plan does not describe specific ways in which the Petitioner's company... will address contamination issues beyond clientele within an area limited to its location of operation
the forecasts included in the business plan are not supported by explanations or objective evidence to support the estimations projected.
the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."
it appears that the Petitioner's business decisions and intentions are limited in scope and scalability as a contractor.
The record does not include sufficient documentation to establish [the company's] significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise demonstrate its positive economic effects.

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    the business plan does not describe specific ways in which the Petitioner's company will address contamination issues beyond clientele within an area limited to its location
    AAO decision text
  • degree · discounted
    The inconsistencies in the evaluation and its lack of analysis call into question its evidentiary credibility
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    these letters are brief and express gratitude but do not provide details concerning the Petitioner's employment
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    it appears that the Petitioner's business decisions and intentions are limited in scope and scalability as a contractor
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    this information, however, does not demonstrate the importance of a particular endeavor proposed by the Petitioner
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Business plan speculative · p1projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Economic claims unsupported · p1job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
  • Local, not national scope · p1impact confined to clients / a region
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 addressed threshold EB-2 advanced degree eligibility only briefly/advisory since it was not dispositive, explicitly instructing Petitioner to resolve credential evaluation and experience documentation issues in any future EB-2 filing. Decision also faulted the appeal brief for failing to identify specific errors under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(v).

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. 204.5(g)(1)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • Matter of Caron Int'l
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles