NIW Bearings
dismissedMAR182024_03B52032024-03-18 · 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, a research assistant with a background in biology and neuroscience, proposed to work as an entrepreneurial software developer designing an application intended to achieve 'human brain and computer symbiosis,' including a web application that interactively displays GitHub search results.

Field: application/software development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude the Petitioner's substantially meritorious proposed endeavor does not rise to a level of nationally importance”
“it does not sufficiently show how those product and services extend beyond the immediate vicinity of the persons or entities utilizing the product or services”
“the Petitioner's personal statement and professional plan do not identify any specific method or marker that sufficiently supports the employment creation or revenue generation”
“the mainly described the Petitioner's competent acquittal of their assigned job duties or otherwise described the work they did previously”
“both authors are seemingly unconnected to the field of application or software development within which the Petitioner's endeavor proposes to function”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “mainly described the Petitioner's competent acquittal of their assigned job duties or otherwise described the work they did previously”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the opinion statements did not illustrate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor rises to a level impacting national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    “educational credentials and professional certificates earned from participation in seminars or continuing professional education exercises are not sufficient to demonstrate the national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “it does not sufficiently show how those product and services extend beyond the immediate vicinity of the persons or entities utilizing the product or services”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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

AAO withdrew the Director's substantial-merit finding (rejecting reliance on the Petitioner's unrelated education) but still dismissed on national importance, articulating that Prong 1 examines the specific proposed endeavor rather than the petitioner's execution, track record, or field, and reserved Prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary to reach.

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 Caron Int'l
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer