NIW Bearings
dismissedJUN302021_04B52032021-06-30 · appeal · Nebraska 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 information systems manager with a background in IT service engineering, sought to continue working in his occupation for a U.S. employer, without specifying a distinct proposed project or role beyond his past employment.

Field: information systems management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

The Director found the Petitioner qualified for exceptional ability but not as an advanced degree professional; the AAO disagreed with the Director's exceptional ability finding, concluding the Petitioner's degree was not sufficiently related to his occupation and he lacked qualifying recognition evidence, though it did not need to resolve this because the NIW failure was dispositive.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“It is clear that Information Systems Managers have both intrinsic merit and national importance.”
“A broad range of potential employers does not imply that the Petitioner is likely to have a wide-ranging impact.”
“This project may have benefited the client, and certainly benefited [ ] but the Petitioner has not shown that it was of national importance”
“At best, the field of the endeavor and the role as it has been described, appears to be localized to the petitioner.”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established · dispositive

“This letter, however, does not meet the Dhanasar standard of showing that the national interest in the Petitioner's contributions is sufficiently urgent”
“The Petitioner does not explain why it is in the national interest (as opposed to one employer's interest) to fill the position immediately.”
“To grant the national interest waiver because a given employer could seek a labor certification, but chooses not to do so, would be to effectively downgrade labor certification”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “successful completion of assignments does not show that his work had, and will continue to have, national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · discounted
    “The Petitioner has not shown that this degree relates to his area of claimed exceptional ability.”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    “the Petitioner has not established that [ ] or the Ministry is 'a college, university, school, or other institution of learning'”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “establishing the proposed endeavor is not simply a matter of describing past employment and stating the intention to continue performing similar work”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • 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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
  • Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
  • Urgency not established · p3 — no reason shown why the benefit cannot wait for labour certification
746coded 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 affirmatively disagreed with the Director's grant of exceptional ability classification, finding the Petitioner's degree and certifications insufficient, but declined to formally resolve that issue since the NIW denial was independently dispositive. The Petitioner's job offer letters explicitly stated employers would not pursue labor certification due to time constraints, which the AAO treated as an employer preference rather than evidence of impracticality or urgency.

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(k)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer