NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY162023_01B52032023-05-16 · 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 sought to serve as general manager of a Florida real estate development company he founded, which planned to construct homes and invest in rental properties.

Field: real estate development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner did not establish that this amount of employment, and the resulting tax revenue, is substantial enough to have national importance.”
“The Petitioner cited statistics about a shortage of construction workers, but the Petitioner did not explain how his proposed endeavor would increase the number of such workers.”
“the petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor ... stands to sufficiently extend beyond an organization and its clients to impact the industry or field more broadly.”
“The Petitioner's involvement in an industry with collective national importance does not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor, specifically, has or will have national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “The Petitioner did not establish that this amount of employment, and the resulting tax revenue, is substantial enough to have national importance.”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought.”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • 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
  • 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 noted the appellate brief appeared largely copied verbatim from the RFE response, including a gray-ink paragraph and mismatched superscript footnote numerals with no corresponding footnotes, and that no business plan was actually attached to the appeal despite references to one.

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
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer