NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY142026_02B52032026-05-14 · 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 an independent contractor developing and implementing best practices, standards, and guidelines for the installation, construction, and maintenance of power equipment and wireless communication infrastructure to improve U.S. telecommunications reliability and efficiency.

Field: telecommunications engineering / systems engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO found inconsistencies between the petitioner's 2017 nonimmigrant visa application and later employment letters that preclude establishing five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience, but since petitioner was not on notice, this was not the basis for dismissal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude that the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar framework”
“the articles and industry reports do not mention the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or its potential impact on the field or on national initiatives”
“working in the telecommunications field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“The Petitioner's projected revenues and tax contributions do not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects”
“they are largely conclusory in nature and do not provide a sufficient evidentiary basis for their claims”
“Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the use of the Petitioner's experience will reach beyond benefitting his own company and clients”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “they are largely conclusory in nature and do not provide a sufficient evidentiary basis for their claims”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “do not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects as contemplated by Dhanasar”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “the articles and industry reports do not mention the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or its potential impact”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · discounted
    “inconsistencies preclude us from determining that the Petitioner possesses five years of post-baccalaureate experience”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “inconsistencies preclude us from determining that the Petitioner possesses five years ofpost-baccalaureate experience”
    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
  • 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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 found significant inconsistencies between petitioner's 2017 nonimmigrant visa application (claiming no prior employment) and later-submitted experience letters, suggesting the threshold advanced-degree-professional eligibility was not actually met, but declined to use this as the basis for dismissal since petitioner lacked notice of the issue, instead resting dismissal on prong 1 national importance and instructing petitioner to resolve inconsistencies in future filings. AAO also rejected petitioner's argument that SCOPS abused its discretion under Buletini v. INS, citing circuit case law that agencies need not address every piece of evidence individually. A footnote states that even if the AAO had reached prongs 2 and 3, it would still have dismissed the appeal.

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
  • Buletini v. INS
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of Ho
  • Matter of Katigbak
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer