NIW Bearings
dismissedOCT192023_01B52032023-10-19 · 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 construction project manager and civil engineer, sought to operate her own company providing construction management, consultancy, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation services for infrastructure and buildings in the United States.

Field: construction project management / civil engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her proposed endeavor largely influences the field and rises to the level of national importance”
“the business plan does not establish the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
“the letters discuss the impact of the Petitioner's work to their own experiences rather than the required broad impact to the construction industry”
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of providing her particular construction project services through ... rather than the importance of construction project managers and related fields and industries”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the business plan does not establish the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letters discuss the impact of the Petitioner's work to their own experiences rather than the required broad impact to the construction industry”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor... rather than the importance of construction project managers and related fields and industries”
    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
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
  • Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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

The Director had already conceded substantial merit but found no national importance; AAO affirmed only on national importance and declined to reach prongs two and three, yet still labeled the single basis as 'each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision,' a stock phrase that does not match the single-issue disposition here.

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 L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show her specific business/service endeavor—rather than the construction industry generally—had impacts extending beyond clients to a level of national importance.

Transferable lesson

Tie the endeavor's projected outputs (jobs, revenue, services) explicitly to demonstrable regional/national economic scale, not just industry importance or personal credentials.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer