NIW Bearings
dismissedMAR132023_01B52032023-03-13 · 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 sought to continue operating his own civil engineering consulting business, assisting clients with evaluation, procurement, consulting, and project management for road and bridge projects, targeting FDOT and private-sector projects primarily in Florida.

Field: civil engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on a foreign equivalent bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the importance of the industries and professions, rather than his specific proposed endeavor.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“the record does not establish that his proposed endeavor stands to impact the field as a whole.”
“the Petitioner has not provided a sufficient foundation for the calculation of these figures, nor has he explained how these figures... would affect the economy”
“The record contains insufficient information and evidence regarding projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his specific work.”
“the record does not suggest that the Petitioner's work would meet the current demand for project managers and civil engineers, address the shortage in these and related fields, or extend beyond his employers and clients.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “none of them describe the proposed endeavor or explain why it has national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “it does not contain sufficient information about the number of direct or indirect jobs the endeavor will create”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “this does not necessarily establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • 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
  • 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
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 explicitly distinguished evidence going to industry/field importance (highway infrastructure, STEM shortages, GDP impact) from evidence of the specific endeavor's national importance, rejecting the former as insufficient standing alone.

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
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer