NIW Bearings
dismissedOCT202023_03B52032023-10-20 · 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, an electronics engineer with a background in medical laboratory equipment maintenance, proposed to develop and run a company distributing a smartphone application intended to assist people with disabilities in managing medical appointments, prescriptions, and related services.

Field: electronics/biomedical engineering (mobile app development) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director found the Petitioner actually qualified as an advanced-degree professional rather than as claimed exceptional ability; the AAO declined to resolve the classification dispute because it did not affect NIW eligibility.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“We conclude that the Petitioner has established that the proposed endeavor has national importance.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“We further agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established the required "education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts" stipulated in Dhanasar.”
“These materials, however, all date from early 2023 and therefore they do not establish the Petitioner's progress toward achieving the proposed endeavor as of the petition's filing date in August 2022.”
“The Petitioner also failed to submit sufficient evidence of funding, users, and other relevant entities for his proposed endeavor.”
“Identical language in letters "suggests that the letters were all prepared by the same person and calls into question the persuasive value of the letters' content."”
“This contradictory information about the fundamental nature of the proposed endeavor adds to doubts that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance that endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “The business plan... describes the substantially revised version of the proposed endeavor rather than the original version described at the time of filing.”
    AAO decision text
  • funding · discounted
    “the Petitioner did not show that the proposal was under consideration or negotiation at the time of filing.”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “Identical language in letters suggests that the letters were all prepared by the same person and calls into question the persuasive value of the letters' content.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “does not establish that, or explain how, managing a company that develops smartphone apps relates to the Petitioner's education and employment history.”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
  • Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
  • No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
  • Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
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 reversed the Director's negative national-importance finding under prong 1, but dismissed solely on prong 2, citing the material-change doctrine (Izummi) to exclude post-filing evidence (2023-dated investor proposal, customer letters, revised business plan) and noting an internal contradiction in the business plan regarding a 'sole proprietorship' dividing shares with an investor.

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
  • Matter of Izummi
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

All evidence of investor interest, business plan, and customer letters postdated the August 2022 filing date, and petitioner lacked any relevant prior track record in app development or biomedical business.

Transferable lesson

Assemble and date all evidence of funding, customer interest, and relevant track record BEFORE filing; post-filing developments cannot cure prong-2 deficiencies.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

public_health · economic_job_creation

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer