NIW Bearings
dismissedNOV012024_07B52032024-11-01 · 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 university professor and administrator, proposed to found and serve as CEO of a higher education consulting business using a proprietary data-analytics algorithm to boost student enrollment and retention, particularly in underserved communities.

Field: higher education consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director and AAO agreed the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on his foreign PhD equivalent.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”
“the record lacks evidence showing that creating 139 jobs and generating over $38 million in revenue over a five-year period rises to the level of national importance”
“Working in or establishing a business in an important field is insufficient on its own to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the letters lack details of the Petitioner's endeavor and mainly describe his professional experience and how his endeavor is of importance based on his experience”
“he has not demonstrated the potential prospective impact of his specific endeavor to such nationally important matters”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letters lack details of the Petitioner's endeavor and mainly describe his professional experience”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “because the Petitioner was put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to provide this evidence in response to a request for evidence, we will not consider this new evidence for the first time on appeal”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · credited

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
  • 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
1,358coded 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 declined to consider new recommendation letters submitted on appeal under Matter of Soriano, but included a footnote alternative holding that even if considered, the letters would not change the outcome because they only offered generalized statements reiterating the business plan.

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
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of E-M-
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer