NIW Bearings
dismissedMAR242026_02B52032026-03-24 · appeal

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 start a consultancy company to improve financial consolidation, planning, compliance, and fiscal survivability of U.S. small to medium-size Latino-owned businesses and entrepreneurs.

Field: business administration / small business consultancy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS determined Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; AAO reserved this issue and did not revisit it.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his individual company's consultancy services would have an impact at a level of national importance.”
“The business plan, however, does not explain how these forecasts were calculated or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized”
“We note that the Petitioner has referred to the operation of his business only in general terms, such as in describing the company's "growth strategy"”
“it is not the overall importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual intends to work, but the particular endeavor”
“The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “does not explain how these forecasts were calculated or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “uses generalized terms to explain the prospective impacts of the Petitioner's proposed business”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “not sufficiently supported by objective evidence related to his particular proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “it is not the overall importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual intends to 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
  • 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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,358coded 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 expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, resolving the appeal solely on prong 1 national importance, citing INS v. Bagamasbad for not making advisory findings on unnecessary issues.

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
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5
  • Flores v. Garland

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show the endeavor's impact would reach a national scale—projections were unsupported, and letters/business plan used generalized, unsubstantiated language about economic benefit.

Transferable lesson

Support projected economic impact with methodology, independent data, and concrete scale (jobs, region, revenue) rather than generic assertions of benefit to entrepreneurship or the economy.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer