NIW Bearings
dismissedMAR252025_07B52032025-03-25 · 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 sought to own and operate a human resources and business management consulting company providing HR and training services to small and midsize enterprises, aiming to enhance labor practices and drive economic growth.

Field: human resources and business management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the cover letter did not provide details about the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor; did not indicate what specific services he would offer”
“the record contained insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner did not sufficiently show how the scope of the products or services he intended to provide extended "beyond the immediate vicinity of the persons or entities utilizing them."”
“Dhanasar requires us to focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake," not the importance of the field, industry, or profession.”
“the letters did not show the broader impact of the Petitioner's work, rather they were limited to his specific clients, who employ him for his services”
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the professional plan's claimed revenue and employment projections, even if credible or plausible, would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the profit and loss statement claiming $162,907 in salaries and benefits in Year 5 does not demonstrate that future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letters did not show the broader impact of the Petitioner's work, rather they were limited to his specific clients”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the expert did not provide any meaningful details about the Petitioner's own specific proposed endeavor or whether the proposed endeavor would have broad implications”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • 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
  • 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
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 →

Notable

AAO notes the Director did not thoroughly analyze prong 2 but nonetheless found it met; AAO declines to revisit that finding since prong 1 alone is dispositive. Petitioner analogized his case to Dhanasar itself (economy vs. national defense), which AAO rejected as focusing on field importance rather than the specific endeavor.

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

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer