NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY092025_02B52032025-05-09 · 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 proposed to work as a security public consultant/advisor providing strategic advice to law enforcement organizations, schools, universities, and private security firms, focusing on crime data analysis, policy development, and community policing strategies.

Field: public security consulting / law enforcement advisory · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, sector, or profession in which the individual will work”
“The Petitioner's personal statements do not demonstrate how the security consulting services he intends to provide would have broader implications”
“the Petitioner does not identify the area where his consulting company will operate”
“the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish what the broader implications of his work would be”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the submitted recommendation letters do not contain sufficient detail to corroborate this claimed impact”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “much of the content of the advisory letter lacks relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “the articles in the record, while providing background information, do not address any details related to the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “A determination regarding the claimed national importance of a specific proposed endeavor cannot be inferred based on the Petitioner's past accomplishments”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “the Petitioner references the same supporting evidence submitted with the original petition and RFE response”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • 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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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

SCOPS conceded substantial merit but found no national importance; AAO expressly declined to determine underlying EB-2 exceptional ability eligibility despite SCOPS also not reaching it, and included a footnote indicating that even if it had reached prongs 2 and 3, the appeal would still be dismissed.

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 Caron Int'l
  • Matter of D-R-
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show his specific consulting endeavor (not just the security field generally) would have broader implications beyond his own clients or a definable economic/regional scale.

Transferable lesson

Tie the proposed endeavor to concrete, identifiable stakeholders, geographic scope, and measurable scale of impact—not general field importance or personal credentials.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

public_health · field_advancement · economic_job_creation

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer