NIW Bearings
dismissedMAR072024_03B52032024-03-07 · 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 energy engineer with facilities management experience, proposed to continue working for U.S. facility management companies to improve energy efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and quality control, and also planned to pursue further graduate education in energy management.

Field: energy engineering / facilities management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director determined Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional (bachelor's plus 5+ years progressive experience); not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“He does not describe or explain how his specific proposed endeavor - working for a U.S. employer as an energy engineer and facilities manager - will have a potential prospective impact.”
“The Petitioner does not explain how his potential employment with either business will have broader implications beyond the company or its clients”
“he has not supported these assertions with sufficient independent, objective evidence”
“Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the field generally, rather than his specific proposed endeavor.”
“His opinion is general in nature, concluding that energy engineers provide services of national importance.”
“the advisory opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “does not meaningfully address the details of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor and why it would have national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “he does not describe his specific projects and goals with sufficient detail to establish the national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “none of these reports addresses the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “does not describe or explain how his specific proposed endeavor ... will have a potential prospective impact”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “does not describe the proposed duties or explain how the position relates to the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • 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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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

AAO footnote states that even if it had reached the remaining prongs, it would still have dismissed the appeal, effectively pre-emptively affirming the Director's unreached findings on prongs 2 and 3 without formal analysis. AAO also independently visited a company website to verify the nature of a purported employer's business (residential solar installer) to discount an employment offer letter.

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
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer