NIW Bearings
dismissedMAR212025_02B52032025-03-21 · 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 IT professional, proposed to operate her own company offering specialized IT consulting, training, and information security services to help U.S. businesses integrate new technologies and optimize operations.

Field: information technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“merely working in a STEM field does not establish the national importance of a specific proposed endeavor”
“The Petitioner does not establish, however, how her individual employment in IT would address the shortage of women, gender diversity and inclusion in IT on a level indicative of national importance”
“The record does not indicate that the employment of up to 10 individuals is significantly high in the IT industry”
“The Petitioner has also not established that a net profit ofup to $100,307 and the payment ofup to $176,390 in taxes would have a substantial positive economic effect”
“E-Z-H- F-D-N- A-S-M- B-R-B-, E- S-L-, and H-D-S- do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
“The record does not demonstrate, however, that any of the company's services are unique, innovative, or would otherwise have national or even global implications”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “The record does not support this claim.”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “do not discuss the Petitioner's 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
  • 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

The Petitioner argued national importance based on general STEM field value and on addressing the shortage of women in IT, both arguments explicitly rejected as conflating field-level importance with the specific endeavor's importance.

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-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer