NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY292019_01B52032019-05-29 · appeal · Nebraska 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.

A public administration and policy professor proposed to establish a nonprofit organization in a low-income California county to provide services for people with disabilities and low incomes, vocational rehabilitation, and language training, while also continuing his teaching career.

Field: public administration and policy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to illustrate the number of individuals his business plans to train and support”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
“the record does not establish that such work would impact the field of education more broadly, as opposed to being limited to his students”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“nor does the record show that this letter from reflects a level of interest in the Petitioner's work among stakeholders”
“he has not documented the extent of impact on the region or otherwise demonstrated that this work constitutes a record of success”
“The Petitioner has not shown that his work has served as an impetus for progress in the field or that it has generated substantial positive discourse”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to illustrate the number of individuals his business plans to train and support”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “the record does not include sufficient infmmation or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or significant job creation”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “nor does the record show that this letter from reflects a level of interest in the Petitioner's work among stakeholders”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “he has not documented the extent of impact on the region or otherwise demonstrated that this work constitutes a record of success”
    AAO decision text
  • funding · ignored
All 6 evidence items
  • awards · ignored

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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
  • Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
  • No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
  • Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
  • Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
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 explicitly analogized the petitioner's teaching duties to the petitioner in Dhanasar itself, finding teaching activities insufficient for national importance under both cases. The decision states each prong failure is an independent and alternate basis for dismissal, despite declining to substantively analyze prong 3.

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.

  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • INA 291

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer