NIW Bearings
dismissedMAR182024_01B52032024-03-18 · 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 sought to work as a (sustainability) communications specialist for a multinational software company, developing and executing communication strategies to promote sustainable practices within the organization.

Field: communications / sustainability communications · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualified as advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the duties listed appear to be central to the company itself, and there is no evidence that the benefits the beneficiary will bring in this company will have broad implications extending outside of the company and its clients.”
“the advisory opinions are of little probative value as they do not meaningfully address the details of the proposed endeavor.”
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work.”
“she has not supported her claims with pertinent evidence showing that the individual work as a communications specialist at one specific company will generate substantial revenue or employment”
“The evidence did not sufficiently articulate how her particular proposed endeavor would have national importance beyond her current employer and its clients.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its specific impact rising to the level of national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “they do not provide any specific information about the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and are insufficient to establish national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
  • business plan · discounted
    “the Petitioner does provide any context or background for this presentation for us to evaluate how her project will have a broad impact”
    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
  • Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
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 explicitly notes the dismissal rests on multiple independent and alternate bases (rejection of expert letters, standard of proof argument, and industry-importance-vs-endeavor argument), even though it declined to reach prongs 2 and 3.

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 E-M-
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer