NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY072026_04B52032026-05-07 · 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, a treasurer/controller with 33 years of construction-finance experience, initially proposed to work for U.S. construction companies but later revised his plan to founding his own civil engineering and residential development company to build a 10-home pilot project in Florida intended to be a replicable, scalable model.

Field: construction finance management / civil engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found, and AAO agreed, that the Beneficiary qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner submitted two materially different proposed endeavors from the petition to the RFE, leaving substantial question as to the actual nature of his proposed endeavor.”
“Benefits to a specific company alone, even a company with a national footprint, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's endeavor has national importance.”
“the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain or substantiate how these numbers represent a potential prospective national impact”
“The Petitioner further did not sufficiently support that his business plans, namely the housing pilot project and claimed replicable housing model, would likely have a potential prospective national impact.”
“the importance of a particular profession or a shortage of professionals in that field does not demonstrate national importance”
“merely working in a STEM field did not demonstrate national importance”
“The Petitioner also regularly refers to "vertical housing" as a key aspect of the potential national implications of his proposed endeavor but leaves this concept unexplained.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “did not submit support for his employment and financial projections or sufficiently specific business plan”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “a Petitioner's background may be helpful in describing the nature of their field and prior work, it is not sufficient to establish the national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “merely working in a STEM field did not demonstrate national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the importance of a particular profession or a shortage of professionals in that field does not demonstrate national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · credited

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
  • Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
  • 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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
  • Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
  • 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

AAO emphasized that the Petitioner materially changed his proposed endeavor between the initial filing and the RFE response (from working for existing construction firms to founding his own company for a housing pilot project), citing Matter of Ho and Matter of Izummi against such shifts. The decision contrasts the Petitioner's case unfavorably with the underlying facts of Matter of Dhanasar itself, noting Dhanasar's petitioner had government funding and a well-documented specialized research trajectory.

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)
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of Ho
  • Matter of Izummi
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer