NIW Bearings
dismissedOCT252023_04B52032023-10-25 · 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, an orthodontic professional, proposed to work in dentistry and open her own laboratory manufacturing indirect bonding orthodontic appliances and braces for the U.S. market.

Field: dentistry/orthodontics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found she qualifies as an advanced degree professional; this was not contested on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The issue here, however, is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and its business pai1ners or clientele”
“she has not presented evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her undertaking would reach the level”
“her business plan anticipates employing five personnel, but she did not elaborate on this projection or provide evidence supporting the need for these employees”
“she has not offered sufficient infonnation and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “she did not elaborate on this projection or provide evidence supporting the need for these employees”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in her field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “Eligibility, however, must be demonstrated at the time of filing the benefit request”
    AAO decision text
  • other · credited

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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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

The AAO noted that the Petitioner's company formation, contract with a partner company, and collaboration with a co-developer all post-dated the filing of the I-140 petition, so were not considered probative of eligibility at filing; the appeal was dismissed solely on prong 1 with prongs 2 and 3 expressly reserved.

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.

  • 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 endeavor (not just the dental field generally) had impact extending beyond her own company/clients to a level of national importance, including job creation or economic effects.

Transferable lesson

Tie the endeavor to concrete, at-filing evidence of broader scale impact (jobs, economic effects, field-wide reach), not post-filing developments or generic field importance.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

public_health · economic_job_creation · field_advancement · geographic_or_shortage_area

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer