NIW Bearings
dismissedMAR192025_02B52032025-03-19 · 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, holding a doctorate in business administration, proposed to impact U.S.-based companies and institutions by developing and implementing marketing strategies to achieve sales growth, optimize operations, expand market share, and strengthen customer relationships.

Field: marketing/business consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional based on doctoral degree; no issue on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner does not indicate that he would directly employ any individuals, and he provides no evidence of how many jobs his work with individual companies would directly generate.”
“The Petitioner does not demonstrate that his work would extend beyond these individual enterprises to impact his field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“The Petitioner does not show how his work would extend beyond these individual associations and groups to impact his field more broadly in a manner indicative of national importance.”
“These articles attest to the importance of marketing, but do not address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
“The record does not show, however, that any of these steps are unique, innovative, or otherwise have national or even global implications in his field.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “praise the Petitioner's past work, but do not discuss his proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “does not demonstrate that his work would extend beyond these individual enterprises to impact his field more broadly”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “attest to the importance of marketing, but do not address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · credited

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
  • 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 →

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
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show his marketing consulting work for individual small/medium businesses would extend beyond those clients to have national or field-wide impact.

Transferable lesson

Support letters and evidence must specifically address how the proposed endeavor's impact scales beyond individual clients/employer to a national or field-wide level, not just praise the applicant's skills.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · geographic_or_shortage_area

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer