NIW Bearings
dismissedOCT012025_05B52032025-10-01 · 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, a structural engineer with over 12 years of experience, proposed to work as a self-employed engineering consultant/business owner providing structural design, project management, and infrastructure-resilience services to public and private clients in rural Florida.

Field: structural engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director found, and the AAO noted in a footnote, that the record demonstrates the Petitioner's bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience satisfies the advanced degree equivalency requirement; this was not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The record contains insufficient information or evidence regarding the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to show broad potential implications demonstrating national importance.”
“the Petitioner's business plan provides generalized projections that are not specific and detailed enough to establish the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor.”
“The Petitioner's projection of creating 20 jobs within five years does not demonstrate a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or support that his proposed endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects.”
“we conclude that this does not necessarily establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”
“the letters describe the Petitioner's job duties, rather than describing achievements that had broad implications to the field of structural engineering”
“the advisory opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor and why it would have national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “generalized projections that are not specific and detailed enough to establish the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “describe the Petitioner's job duties, rather than describing achievements that had broad implications to the field of structural engineering”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the advisory opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the report does not specifically 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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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

In a footnote, the AAO added alternative reasoning that even if it reached prong three, it would still dismiss the appeal because SCOPS had found the balancing factors unmet and the Petitioner offered no new evidence on appeal. The AAO also rejected the Petitioner's procedural argument that a 'two-step evidentiary analysis' (used for exceptional-ability classification) was required for NIW adjudication.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.3
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer