NIW Bearings
dismissedMAR222022_01B52032022-03-22 · 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 entrepreneur with an IT/business consulting company in Florida, proposed to provide software and IT solutions (ERP, accounting, managerial software) to U.S. businesses, individuals, and institutions.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO found Petitioner met at least three of six exceptional ability criteria (academic record, ten years experience, and salary), reversing the Director's finding that only one criterion was met.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.”
“The letters from the Petitioner's colleagues do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that his proposed work offers broader implications”
“he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”
“he did not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his companies' and their clientele to impact the IT industry or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“he has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where operates is economically depressed”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “he did not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “focus on the Petitioner's IT skills, business knowledge, work projects, and experience in his field rather than the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · credited
  • other · discounted
    “the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
    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 not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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 reversed the Director's exceptional-ability finding (crediting two additional regulatory criteria) but still dismissed the appeal solely on Dhanasar prong 1 national importance, declining to reach prongs 2 and 3; general articles about immigrant entrepreneurship's economic value were treated as supporting only 'substantial merit,' not national 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. 204.5(k)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer