NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY302024_01B52032024-05-30 · 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 financial manager, intended to operate his own financial consulting company in the U.S., providing financial management services to small- and medium-sized American businesses and to Latin American companies expanding into the U.S. market.

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

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“this material does not provide sufficient insight into the Petitioner's business plans regarding his proposed financial consultancy services company”
“the asserted national importance of his proposed endeavor relies on the overall importance of responsible financial management in optimizing business performance”
“The Petitioner did not, however, provide sufficient basis for these projections, nor are the numbers corroborated by probative evidence”
“Again, the Petitioner did not specify how he would accomplish training on a scale that would impact the job market at a national level”
“It is not clear how a business of the size and scope described in the business plan would significantly impact a certain region”
“the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor would offer a region or its population substantial economic benefits”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “did not specifically describe in his professional or business plan how he would undertake an endeavor of the scale”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letters do not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “this material does not provide sufficient insight into the Petitioner's business plans regarding his proposed financial consultancy services company”
    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
  • 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
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 noted the Petitioner failed to identify any specific error in the Director's decision as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(v), stating this alone was grounds for dismissal, but nonetheless proceeded to address the merits of prong one.

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.

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

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer