NIW Bearings
dismissedOCT052022_01B52032022-10-05 · combined · Nebraska 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 planned to operate his own engineering business providing industrial and maintenance/repair engineering services (e.g., to manufacturing and cement companies) in the United States.

Field: industrial and maintenance engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we determined that the Petitioner's evidence had not sufficiently shown that the impact of the proposed endeavor extends beyond his company, partnerships, and clients”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field or profession in which the individual will work”
“the actual figures appear to be little more than conjecture”
“the benefit of the Petitioner's services appears to be contingent upon other entities hiring him for his services”
“the authors did not sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's performance or the results he achieved extended beyond his employer”
“has conflated the importance of STEM and the Petitioner's field in general with the importance of the specific proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the actual figures appear to be little more than conjecture”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “did not sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's performance or the results he achieved extended beyond his employer”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “this would still not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, as the business relationship appears to benefit the parties involved”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “we question whether this document represents a genuine proposal”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “additional evidence regarding them cannot be considered new”
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • resume experience · discounted
    “relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which 'shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national'”
    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
  • 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
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

AAO devotes extensive analysis to unresolved factual inconsistencies between the Petitioner's 'Professional Declaration' and 'Petitioner Letter' and a supporting letter's dates, and questions the authenticity of a submitted proposal document based on font/email/language irregularities, treating these credibility issues as an independent basis (alongside prong 1 insufficiency) for denying the motion to reopen.

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(c)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5
  • Matter of Coelho
  • Matter of Ho

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer