NIW Bearings
dismissedJUN302025_01B52032025-06-30 · appeal

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 attorney, proposed to work as a fire safety compliance attorney providing regulatory compliance advisory services to government agencies and private entities, along with policy advocacy and public education campaigns to promote adoption of modern fire safety codes nationwide.

Field: fire safety regulatory compliance law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not illustrate how his specific endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond his clients and the individuals he trains to impact the industry, region, or nation more broadly”
“working in an important field alone is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“he has not specifically detailed, much less quantified, the positive economic benefits he contends would be realized through his endeavor”
“they are largely conclusory and do not specifically explain how the Petitioner's work, in particular, would produce such nationally important impacts”
“the benefits he would provide as a single fire safety compliance attorney are too attenuated to have national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “they are largely conclusory and do not specifically explain how the Petitioner's work, in particular, would produce such nationally important impacts”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “the evidence submitted does not reflect... how his specific services would produce the benefits claimed”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “his articles and reports... do not mention or discuss his particular endeavor, including how it might impact the field more broadly”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • 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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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

Unusual procedural posture: this is not an appeal of an initial denial but of SCOPS' revocation of a previously approved NIW petition via NOIR, on the ground the approval was erroneous under Matter of Ho/Estime. A footnote also addresses and excuses as a harmless scrivener's error SCOPS' apparent misreference to the petitioner's occupation in its third-prong analysis, citing Matter of O-R-E-.

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
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of Ho
  • Matter of O-R-E-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer