NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY022023_01B52032023-05-02 · 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, proposed to start his own IT business offering a wide range of services including consulting, training, technology development, and facilitating commercial transactions between the U.S. and Latin America.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to establish he qualifies for the EB-2 classification.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“His proposed endeavor involves a variety of services in addition to running his own business.”
“He has not explained how he will divide his time between the various facets of his proposed endeavor.”
“The Petitioner has not established that the benefit of his services will extend beyond his clients and company.”
“The Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry as sufficient to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor.”
“Although he provided projections in revenue and job creation, the Petitioner has not offered a sufficient foundation or corroborating details to support the projections.”
“As such, these figures appear to be little more than conjecture.”
“The authors provide generalized and conclusory statements about the Petitioner's impact without offering independent and objective evidence to corroborate their claims.”
“the testimonial letters offer no detail about the extent of the petitioner's claimed achievements ... or how, exactly, the petitioner has played a significant role in the work of others in the field.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “these figures appear to be little more than conjecture”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “generalized and conclusory statements about the Petitioner's impact without offering independent and objective evidence”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “none of the reference materials discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the record does not evidence a sufficiently direct connection between the proposed endeavor activities and either job creation, tax revenue, or increased household spending”
    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
  • 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
  • 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

The AAO addressed an expert 'advisory opinion' on economic multiplier effects submitted by the Petitioner, acknowledging basic economic theory but finding insufficient direct evidentiary connection to the specific endeavor. The decision also explicitly noted that letters praising the Petitioner's personal qualifications were misplaced under prong 1 and more properly belonged to prong 2 analysis, which was never reached.

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
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Matter of V-K-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer