NIW Bearings
dismissedNOV042025_01B52032025-11-04 · appeal

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 Beneficiary, a senior hardware engineer, proposed to design and develop test scenarios and optimization solutions (MBIST, ATPG, IDDQ, WLC testing) to validate hardware functionality and performance for advanced semiconductor systems at his employer.

Field: semiconductor / electrical engineering (hardware test engineering) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS and AAO agreed the Beneficiary qualified as an advanced degree professional; not at issue on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record did not corroborate that the Beneficiary's work would broadly impact the field outside of his employer and its clients”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the economic implications and technological advancements resulting from the company's operations would be directly attributable to the Beneficiary's particular role as a hardware engineer”
“the expert opinion letter is of little probative value as it conflates the importance of the field overall with the national importance of the Beneficiary's specific endeavor”
“the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate how the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor stands to extend beyond his employer, its business partners, and its clientele”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the record did not corroborate that the Beneficiary's work would broadly impact the field outside of his employer and its clients”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the expert opinion letter is of little probative value as it conflates the importance of the field overall with the national importance of the Beneficiary's specific endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · credited

Where this case turned

  • 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
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

AAO cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) for the proposition that NIW grants are discretionary, joining several circuits. The Petitioner argued SCOPS misapplied the 'more likely than not' standard from Dhanasar regarding certainty of prospective impact, but AAO rejected this by emphasizing quality/probative value of evidence under Chawathe. Decision explicitly declines to reach prongs 2 and 3 under Bagamasbad.

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
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of E-M-
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer