NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY162024_07B52032024-05-16 · 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, an experienced commercial photographer/videographer, sought to establish a U.S. limited liability company providing multimedia production and marketing services, with a business plan projecting 48 employees and about $2.1 million in revenue by year five.

Field: commercial photography and video, podcast, and multimedia production · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director found the Petitioner met only two of six exceptional-ability criteria; the Petitioner disputed this on appeal, but the AAO declined to reach the issue because it resolved the appeal on the national importance prong instead.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the potential impact of his proposed endeavor beyond his business, employees, and clients.”
“the Petitioner does not explain how the business's five-year projections of $2.1 million in revenues and 48 employees would potentially and substantially affect the national economy.”
“he has not demonstrated that his company would potentially affect the economy or his field on a national level.”
“the record does not indicate that the company has yet commenced business.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the Petitioner does not explain how the business's five-year projections of $2.1 million in revenues and 48 employees would potentially and substantially affect the national economy.”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the opinion does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's specific venture – by itself – would potentially affect the economy or his field on a national level.”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “we must focus on the particular proposed endeavor... not on the general contributions of immigrant entrepreneurs.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · 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
  • 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
1,312coded 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

The AAO rejected the Petitioner's HUBZone-based national-importance argument because the record did not show the company's headquarters would actually be located within the HUBZone-designated portion of the city, only somewhere in the city generally. The AAO also declined a higher 66-jobs figure raised for the first time on appeal, citing the 'at time of filing' rule. Prongs 2 and 3 and the remaining exceptional-ability criteria were expressly reserved as unnecessary to the outcome.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer