NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY072025_02B52032025-05-07 · 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 industrial engineer, sought to open an engineering consulting business in Florida providing project management, design, and engineering services, projecting to hire eight employees and reach $1.2 million in revenue by 2027.

Field: industrial/civil/mechanical engineering consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner does not provide an explanation of how he intends to enhance efficiency and sustainability or what that enhancement would mean compared to a typical or average engineering project.”
“Nonetheless, the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized, nor does the record contain evidence to support the business plan's financial projections.”
“We do not dispute the importance of the construction and engineering industry to the U.S. economy, however, the market data presented encompasses the industry as a whole and not the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
“The record does not establish that creating 8 jobs and generating $581,884 in net profit after 5 years, as projected in the business plan, would have substantial positive economic effects on the level of national importance.”
“The Petitioner has not proposed to build 100 homes, only to provide support services to unspecified individuals and organizations.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the lack of supporting details detracts from the probative value of the business plan”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · ignored
  • other · discounted
    “the market data presented encompasses the industry as a whole and not the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
    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
  • 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

AAO cited Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) as authority that NIW grant/denial is discretionary in nature, joining several circuits; this is a notable citation not typically seen in earlier decisions.

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
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer