NIW Bearings
dismissedNOV292023_11B52032023-11-29 · 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 digital influencer from Brazil with a large YouTube/social media following, proposed to own and operate a U.S.-based digital influencer marketing company creating marketing campaigns and brand-awareness content for business clients.

Field: digital influencer marketing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualified as individual of exceptional ability; this was not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
“the industry reports and articles on record do not discuss the Petitioner's his proposed endeavor of operating a digital influencer marketing company”
“the business plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how generating six employees and the revenue of $737,281 will have "substantial positive economic effects"”
“the expert opinion letter is of little probative value as it overstates the evidence in the record and conflates the importance of the digital marketing industry overall with the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
“the record does not support the Petitioner's marketing company would operate on such a large scale that would benefit the U.S. economy or extend beyond his clients to broadly impact the digital marketing industry rising to the level of national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “generally discusses the growth of media and entertainment industry... [i]nstead of addressing the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • awards · discounted
    “generally relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “generally relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “does not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of operating a digital influencer marketing company or its specific impact”
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • resume experience · discounted
    “highlight his experiences and skills as a digital influencer but do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
    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
  • 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
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 →

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 E-M-
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer