NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY212026_01B52032026-05-21 · 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 Beneficiary proposed to continue working as a port manager for the Petitioner in Rhode Island, managing the local port office, liaising with customers, and coordinating vessel port calls and operational matters.

Field: port and maritime operations management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS and the AAO agreed the Beneficiary's foreign degree in languages and literature was the foreign equivalent of a U.S. master's degree, satisfying EB-2 advanced-degree classification.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond the company and its clientele”
“the national shortage of project management professionals is not, in and of itself, sufficient to establish the national importance”
“the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance”
“they do not offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of his proposed endeavor or establish how such an impact would extend beyond his employer and its clients”
“the letters are not probative of the Beneficiary's eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • other · discounted
    “the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letters are not probative of the Beneficiary's eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “The letter therefore is insufficient to establish the national importance of the Beneficiary's specific proposed U.S. work”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · credited

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
  • 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
  • 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 cited Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) to underscore that the NIW determination is discretionary, joining several circuit courts on this point.

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)
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer