NIW Bearings
dismissedMAR272026_01B52032026-03-27 · 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, an electronics engineer, proposed to own and operate a business offering technical support, equipment installation and maintenance, compliance consulting, workforce training, and workflow optimization services to small and medium-sized enterprises in the television broadcasting and streaming industries.

Field: electronics engineering / television broadcasting and streaming · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he has not provided a cohesive proposal for how he will undertake the widespread ambition he envisions”
“it is not the overall importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual intends to work, but the particular endeavor on which an individual intends to embark”
“the shortage of an occupation does not render a proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
“The Petitioner has not provided independent evidence or otherwise explained how his business would affect the economy or create jobs”
“This assertion presumes collaborations without the support of a plausible plan to facilitate them”
“the author does not explain how the Petitioner's endeavor will address demands for services to impact the field at a level commensurate with national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the author does not explain how the Petitioner's endeavor will address demands for services to impact the field at a level commensurate with national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “does not explain how these forecasts were calculated or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “it does not illustrate how the Petitioner's endeavor to offer consulting and technical services to small and medium-sized enterprises would impact the field of television broadcasting or digital streaming more broadly”
    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
  • 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

SCOPS had found the endeavor to have substantial merit and the Petitioner well-positioned to advance it, but AAO reversed only on national importance (prong 1) and expressly declined to reach the advanced-degree threshold issue or prongs 2/3, deeming the prong-1 failure dispositive.

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
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer