NIW Bearings
dismissedMAR252025_03B52032025-03-25 · 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 planned to run a telecommunications business aimed at improving connectivity and communication infrastructure for rural and remote U.S. communities and providing network planning solutions to mobile operators.

Field: telecommunications · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner established eligibility as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The referenced evidence does not address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and does not explain how the Petitioner's endeavor is nationally important.”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner did not identify in the record below or now on appeal the methods and improvements he intends to implement”
“the Petitioner did not provide the basis for his projections in the business plan or in the remaining record”
“The record does not show that it stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company's clients to impact his field more broadly in a manner indicative of national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the Petitioner did not provide the basis for his projections in the business plan or in the remaining record”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “these documents describe the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities, which relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “these documents describe the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities, which relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “they make no reference to his specific proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “the Petitioner did not provide the basis for his projections in the business plan or in the remaining record”
    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
1,312coded 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

Petitioner raised a due process argument that the Director erred by not analyzing all three Dhanasar prongs; AAO rejected this citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not reach unnecessary alternative issues. Decision also discusses the SBA HUBZone program in a footnote regarding economically depressed area claims.

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