NIW Bearings
dismissedOCT122021_01B52032021-10-12 · appeal · 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 initially proposed to work as a marketing management specialist for a U.S. employer, then, in response to an RFE, shifted to a proposal to be CEO of her own social media marketing company.

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

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“an occupation (marketing management specialist) and the general work perfmmedin that occupation do not constitute an endeavor.”
“Because the Petitioner has not provided consistent information regarding her proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that she meets either the first or second prong”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“Because the Petitioner has not provided consistent information regarding her proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that she meets either the first or second prong, or that she has established eligibility for a national interest waiver.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the Petitioner...failed to provide any explanation for the change from a marketing management specialist to that of an entrepreneur and chief executive officer.”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
  • Endeavor too vague · p2 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
1,581coded 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

The case turns on a material, unexplained shift in the proposed endeavor between the initial filing (employee marketing specialist) and the RFE response (entrepreneur/CEO of own company), treated as presenting new facts under Matter of Michelin Tire Corp. rather than clarifying the original claim; the AAO found both prongs 1 and 2 unmet on this basis without separately analyzing prong 3.

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)(12)
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of Izummi
  • Matter of Katigbak
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer