NIW Bearings
dismissedNOV062025_02B52032025-11-06 · 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 petitioner, a software developer with cybersecurity expertise, proposed to operate and serve as CEO of his own cybersecurity consulting firm offering tailored risk-assessment and security services to clients in education, financial services, and personal data protection.

Field: cybersecurity · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not provided evidence, either initially or on appeal, to show that his company's location will likely lead to national or global dissemination”
“simply working on an endeavor within that industry is insufficient to establish that the endeavor itself has national importance”
“these figures do not establish that the Petitioner's company would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner has not explained how his proposed employment metrics would have impact beyond his company's area of intended operations”
“it is unclear how the endeavor will broadly impact those sectors, as opposed to more narrowly impacting the specific clients”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “these figures do not establish that the Petitioner's company would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “these initiatives are not specific to the Petitioner and do not advance the Petitioner's claim about his proposed endeavor's national importance”
    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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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 cites Flores v. Garland for the proposition that NIW grant/denial is discretionary, joining several circuits; declines to reach prongs 2, 3, and threshold EB-2 classification since prong 1 failure is dispositive.

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
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer