NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY122021_04B52032021-05-12 · 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, a social work coordinator, proposed to coordinate and structure social work service delivery for a church in Maryland, including developing programs, rehabilitation initiatives, and liaising with government authorities.

Field: social work · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“In the Petitioner's own words, the proposed endeavor would be in the interest of the state level, not a broader region.”
“Here, the Petitioner makes no claims that the proposed endeavor will have national or global implications for the field.”
“The record does not establish that the endeavor would result in process improvements that would have national or even global implications in the field of social work”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the issue raised by the first Dhanasar prong is not whether the Petitioner's social work coordination would be confined to Christians”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • 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
1,619coded 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 Petitioner's own description of the endeavor as being 'in the interest of the state' (Maryland) was used against him to establish local rather than national scope; AAO reserved opinion on prongs 2 and 3 as prong 1 was dispositive.

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.

  • INA 203(b)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles