NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY172024_01B52032024-05-17 · 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 business manager, proposed to provide business consulting services to U.S. companies, including sales support, contract negotiation, lease negotiation, and related business process improvements.

Field: business/contract management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director found the Petitioner qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated her proposed endeavor's national importance and, thus, has not shown that she satisfies Dhanasar's first prong”
“these objectives simply describe the typical duties of a business manager and do not show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“simply working in an important field is insufficient to establish a proposed endeavor's national importance”
“Her general references to increased tax revenue, unspecified job creation, and additional investments in new opportunities rely on more generalizations”
“she has not identified the means or method through which she will pursue accomplishing this vague objective through her endeavor”
“General conclusory statements without a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between the proposed endeavor and the claimed economic and national security impacts are insufficient”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letter does not offer specific details on how the Petitioner's endeavor would accomplish these goals or how any impact would extend beyond the direct companies and clients”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
    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
  • 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

The AAO addressed and rejected the Petitioner's claim that the Director erred by treating her as proposing to establish her own business, pointing to her own personal statement referring to herself as an 'entrepreneur' and needing to work through 'a business of my own.'

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
  • 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)
  • Flores v. Garland

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer