NIW Bearings
dismissedOCT302023_04B52032023-10-30 · 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 sought to open and operate his own information technology business providing data analysis, data security, and related consulting services to small businesses, initially on the West Coast then expanding nationally.

Field: information technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of owning and operating his business rather than the importance of a spectrum of general issues”
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his proposed endeavor of owning and operating an information technology company largely influences the field and rises to the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner did establish that such future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits to the region or U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”
“the record does not show through supporting documentation how his business stands to sufficiently extend beyond its prospective clients”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “even if credible or plausible, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his company would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
    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
  • 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
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 Petitioner conflated his personal skills/experience (a prong 2 issue) with the national importance of the specific endeavor (prong 1), a distinction the AAO explicitly clarified. The AAO rejected employment projections (48 to 1,069 jobs) as insufficient to show national importance without further substantiation.

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

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer