NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY232024_10B52032024-05-23 · 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 systems engineer with decades of IT experience, proposed to provide affordable ERP/CRM and GRP/CRM business management software implementation services to small and medium-sized U.S. companies and government agencies.

Field: systems engineering / IT (ERP/CRM software implementation) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients to impact the business management software market or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“The action plan, however, is devoid of a timeline or documentation such as industry and market analysis, business strategies, and financial forecasts”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“none of the authors discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “none of the authors discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “devoid of a timeline or documentation such as industry and market analysis, business strategies, and financial forecasts”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national"”
    AAO decision text

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
  • 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
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

AAO addressed and rejected a due-process/abuse-of-discretion argument based on Buletini v. INS, holding the Director need not individually address every piece of evidence if reasoned consideration is given to the totality.

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
  • Buletini v. INS
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show the specific endeavor's impact extended beyond his own clients to the broader industry or U.S. economy at a nationally significant scale.

Transferable lesson

Support the endeavor with concrete market data, target regions, staffing/financial projections, and letters addressing the endeavor's broader impact—not just personal credentials.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer