NIW Bearings
dismissedNOV192021_01B52032021-11-19 · 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 chief executive in the IT consulting industry, proposed to plan, direct, and coordinate business operations and develop cross-border business activities, including expanding a Florida-based IT consulting company and a data-center company's operations into the United States.

Field: IT consulting / business administration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

The Petitioner failed to establish U.S. equivalency of his foreign education (a certificate program was not shown to be equivalent to a master's degree, and the evaluator's opinion was found unreliable and templated) and failed to show that his post-baccalaureate work experience was progressive in nature, as the employer letter did not describe duties or responsibilities.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient or persuasive evidence of how his proposed endeavor is nationally important, as opposed to the fields in general.”
“The Petitioner initially described his proposed endeavor as advancing his own career, which does not suggest that its impact would be nationally important.”
“the "ripple effects" the proposed endeavor would generate are not well explained or documented in the record”
“the Petitioner's arguments that the proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of IT workers is not persuasive”
“he has not explained how he will create a revenue stream so substantial as to affect the national economy or generate tax revenue”
“none of the authors demonstrate knowledge of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, nor do they assert that the Petitioner's accomplishments and contributions extended beyond his specific employer and clients”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
“the lack of operating status in the United States suggests that the Petitioner's work as CEO for is not currently a viable proposed endeavor activity”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • degree · discounted
    “the record does not support this claim”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “we conclude that this evaluation is of little probative value in this matter”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the record is insufficient to conclude that the experience was progressive in nature”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “we conclude that these letters offer little probative value in this matter”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “the Petitioner has not explained how he will create a revenue stream so substantial as to affect the national economy”
    AAO decision text
All 8 evidence items
  • contract revenue · discounted
  • media · discounted
    “as these articles do not discuss or address the proposed endeavor, they offer little to aid our analysis”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “this evidence does not address the numerous shortcomings we previously identified”
    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
  • Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
  • Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
  • 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
  • Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 first withdrew the Director's favorable finding on the underlying advanced-degree classification, finding a management-improvement certificate program was not shown equivalent to a master's degree and the credential evaluator's opinion was 'templated' and unreliable. Despite finding the NIW issue technically moot due to this threshold failure, AAO proceeded to analyze prong 1 anyway, ultimately dismissing on both grounds, with prongs 2 and 3 expressly reserved.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Matter of V-K-
  • Poursina v. USCIS
  • Section 291 of the Act

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer