NIW Bearings
dismissedNOV082023_02B52032023-11-08 · 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 sought to establish and operate a cosmetics factory in Florida to manufacture and sell hair care products he developed, as an extension of his existing business in Brazil.

Field: cosmetics/hair care products manufacturing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Here, the Petitioner does not identify independent and corroborative documentation to support how working as a general operations manager of his own cosmetics business stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and future clients to broadly impact the industry or the U.S. economy.”
“Instead, the Petitioner's claims of national importance rely on generalized discussion of the industry's importance, the field's overall outlook, and the value of immigrant entrepreneurship.”
“The letter offers vague and generic assertions about how the Petitioner's endeavor "impacts a matter that a government entity has described as having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives"”
“However, the business plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how these projections will be realized.”
“However, the Petitioner does not provide a copy of EPI multiplier report to verify and support his calculation methods or explain how he arrived at such a wide and varying range of numbers asserted on the brief.”
“We conclude that the record does not demonstrate that his endeavor of establishing a cosmetic factory and developing hair care products extend beyond his company and future clients, to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the business plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how these projections will be realized”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the expert letter focuses on the importance of the industry and profession, not the specific impact of the proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “The Petitioner's unsupported statements are insufficient to meet his burden of proof without relevant, probative, and credible evidence.”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
  • awards · discounted
    “the evidence relating to the Petitioner's experience, record of success, and skills relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • other · discounted
    “the record does not contain independent and corroborating evidence of such statement”
    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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • 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 found the endeavor had substantial merit but not national importance; entrepreneur relied on a 'Statement of Significant Contributions' from unidentified associates and an 'Intellectual Property Statement' from an employee at his own foreign company, both discounted for lacking independent qualified corroboration. AAO also rejected indirect job-creation estimates derived from an uncited EPI multiplier report.

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
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show the specific endeavor's impact extended beyond his own company/clients to the broader industry or U.S. economy; evidence was generic industry/field importance, not endeavor-specific national scale.

Transferable lesson

Support projected economic/job-creation claims with verifiable data, methodology, and independent corroboration tying the specific endeavor—not the industry generally—to national-scale impact.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · stem_positive_factor · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer