NIW Bearings
dismissedNOV252025_03B52032025-11-25 · 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, an IT project manager, proposed to implement IT solutions and technologies for local government entities, municipalities, and public service agencies to streamline citizens' access to online resources.

Field: information technology / IT project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS and AAO found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not illustrate how her specific endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond her company and clients to impact the industry, region, or nation more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“she mainly relies on her own statements without sufficient corroborating evidence to support her assertions”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work.”
“Aside from vaguely claiming that she will work in IT project management and "implement[] IT solutions and technologies to streamline citizens' access to online resources... she has provided little detail”
“Working forl [ ]in IT project management for the company's clients and generally implementing IT solutions and technologies as directed by the company's clients, does not adequately demonstrate how her endeavor stands to impact the broader IT field, region, or nation”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the support letters are of little probative value in weighing the proposed endeavor's national importance.”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “they did not speak to the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor or illustrate how her endeavor would have prospectively broader impacts.”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “these documents provide only general background information on the aforementioned subjects and do not specifically relate to or discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the Petitioner's past accomplishments are considerations that are more relevant under prong two.”
    AAO decision text

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
  • 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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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 declined to consider the Petitioner's attempt to reframe/redefine her endeavor on appeal, citing Matter of M-F-O- for the rule against raising new claims for the first time on appeal; SCOPS had found prong two satisfied but prong three not met, though AAO did not reach either on de novo review, resting solely on prong one.

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
  • INA 203(b)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer