NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY172022_01B52032022-05-17 · 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 Brazilian entrepreneur, sought to continue managing and developing companies in the U.S., including expanding a Japanese restaurant/poke concept and providing business consulting and advisory services to U.S. companies and individuals.

Field: entrepreneurship / food service and business consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner failed to establish five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in entrepreneurship via qualifying employer letters, and did not contest the Director's finding that he met only one of the six exceptional-ability criteria.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his companies and clientele to impact his field or the restaurant industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”
“these letters do not explain how his proposed work is of national importance.”
“In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • resume experience · discounted
    “The information relating to the aforementioned companies is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “these letters do not explain how his proposed work is of national importance.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's business projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · credited

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

AAO explicitly states each of the three independent bases (advanced degree, exceptional ability, and Dhanasar prong 1) is an alternate basis for dismissal. General economic-benefit-of-immigrant-entrepreneurs articles were found insufficient to tie the specific endeavor to national importance.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • INA 291
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer