NIW Bearings
dismissedNOV042024_05B52032024-11-04 · 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.

The Petitioner, a hospitality quality control manager, proposed to operate her own quality control consulting company providing quality assurance reviews to hotels, restaurants, retail spaces, museums, amusement parks, and travel agencies.

Field: hospitality quality control consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO disagreed with the Director sua sponte, finding the Petitioner did not establish she held a qualifying advanced degree because her foreign academic records lacked the required certified English translation under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(3) and thus were accorded no evidentiary weight.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“The Petitioner's initial statement focused on the importance of her field, ignoring the requirement of Dhanasar that the endeavor's importance is determined by how the specific endeavor will impact the field on a level commensurate with national importance.”
“The record as currently constituted does not reflect how the endeavor would have a nationally important impact on the hospitality field or has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”
“the Petitioner's business plan does not explain how the included financial forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how the financial projections will be realized.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“she still has not demonstrated that she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor as she lacks experience in many of the functions of her proposed endeavor and has not demonstrated progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor.”
“The Petitioner lacks experience in many of the businesses in which she plans to act as an evaluator.”
“they do not explain how the Petitioner's work has been implemented, utilized, or applauded by others in the hospitality field outside ofher past employers.”
“the plan does not explain how these items were calculated, or adequately clarify how the revenue will be realized, nor does the record contain evidence to support the business plan's financial projections.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • degree · discounted
    “As the academic records were not translated in accordance with the plain language requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), they do not have any evidentiary weight and will not be considered.”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “they do not demonstrate that the Petitioner has achieved a level of past success or progress that would render her well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “the lack of supporting details detracts from the credibility and probative value of the business plan.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “it does not reflect that she has any significant experience in retail spaces, travel companies, museums, or amusement parks.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the advisory opinion is of little probative value as Dr. [ ]'s evaluation focuses almost entirely on the Petitioner's education and work experience in Russian hotels.”
    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
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
  • Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
  • Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • 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
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

On de novo review the AAO sua sponte reversed the Director's favorable findings on both the threshold advanced-degree issue and Dhanasar prong 1 (neither of which had been grounds for the Director's denial), yet ultimately rested dismissal on prong 2 as dispositive, declining to reach 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.

  • 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(3)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.3
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer