NIW Bearings
remandedNOV272023_02B52032023-11-27 · 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 provide enterprise-grade cybersecurity solutions to average U.S. consumers through his company, a software company

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“he did not sufficiently describe the origin or basis for these projections”
“lack persuasive detail concerning the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend beyond his customers”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionedestablished

“the signature page of the contract is not signed by the Petitioner”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “he did not sufficiently describe the origin or basis for these projections”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “lack persuasive detail concerning the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “the signature page of the contract is not signed by the Petitioner”
    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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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

This is an unusual remand where the AAO agrees with the Director's ultimate conclusion (petition not established) but remands anyway because the Director's decision was poorly reasoned, conflated prongs, misapplied pronouns to the Petitioner throughout, and failed to adequately explain deficiencies to allow meaningful appellate review, citing Matter of M-P-.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
  • INA 203(b)(2)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

AAO remanded because the Director's decision was internally inconsistent, conflated prongs, and failed to adequately explain deficiencies, precluding meaningful appellate review, though AAO agreed importance/positioning were unestablished.

Transferable lesson

Support projections with documented basis and obtain letters detailing industry-wide impact, not just praise for products/skills, to establish national importance.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_growth_generic · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer