NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY022025_05B52032025-05-02 · 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 Beneficiary, a lead data engineer, proposed to manage his employer's Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR) and Expiring Annual Revenue (EAR), purportedly fostering the company's business performance, competitiveness, and workforce investment.

Field: data engineering / information technology (ARR/EAR management) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Beneficiary qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's endeavor has national importance.”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the record does not contain any financial analysis or details supporting how the Beneficiary's proposed services affect the Petitioner's revenue”
“the expert opinion letter does not provide any meaningful analysis of the endeavor's broader implications or potential prospective economic impact rising to the level of national importance”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“A mere passing reference in a brief will not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal.”
“the Petitioner's choice to eschew a meaningful claim of eligibility under Dhanasar's second prong ... is the Petitioner's waiver of that issue on appeal”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letters do not support the national importance of the Beneficiary's endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “Most of the articles and reports the Petitioner submitted into the record pertained to information technology in general.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · ignored
  • degree · credited
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “the Petitioner does not identify examples in support of its assertion”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
  • 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
  • NEW argument waived on appeal · p2
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 relies on a newly issued USCIS Policy Alert PA-2025-03 (Jan. 15, 2025) as guidance for national-importance analysis, an unusually recent policy citation. The decision also treats the Petitioner's failure to substantively brief prong two as an independent, alternative basis for dismissal via appellate waiver doctrine, separate from the prong-one national-importance failure. A footnote further notes SCOPS' erroneous labeling of the Petitioner as a 'self-petitioner' was deemed de minimis.

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 E-M-
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer