NIW Bearings
dismissedMAR072024_01B52032024-03-07 · 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 consultant, proposed to operate his own consulting business, presenting a business plan projecting the creation of eight jobs for U.S. workers.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director found, and the AAO confirmed, that the Petitioner met the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; no exceptional-ability determination was necessary.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The number of jobs created does not rise to the level ot: "significant potential to employ U.S. workers" as required by Dhanasar.”
“the relevant question when determining whether a proposed endeavor will have national importance is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the Petitioner will work, but the specific impact of the proposed endeavor.”
“the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor will have "national or even global implications" within the field of information technology.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “The number of jobs created does not rise to the level ot: "significant potential to employ U.S. workers" as required by Dhanasar.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “This is more appropriate for an analysis on whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor and does not further a national importance determination.”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “the relevant question... is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the Petitioner will work, but the specific impact of the proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • 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
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

The AAO expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 because prong 1 failure was dispositive, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not make advisory findings. The Petitioner's due-process argument (alleging the Director failed to assess exceptional ability) was rejected as mischaracterizing the decision, since the Petitioner had already qualified via the advanced-degree pathway.

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)
  • Chen v. INS
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer