NIW Bearings
dismissedSEP062022_01B52032022-09-06 · 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.

A military officer with 23 years of experience in special and tactical operations proposed to provide security consulting, training, and managerial services to U.S. companies, later shifting to founding his own security-services firm in Florida.

Field: security/tactical operations consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Accordingly, we conclude that the focus of his endeavor has materially changed after the filing of the petition.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his business and future clientele to impact the security industry or U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“the Petitioner did not provide evidence of his $100,000 investment, nor has he provided an accounting of how this money will be allocated”
“the business plan largely discusses generic aspects of the security services industry, not the Petitioner's specific plans to establish and operate his business.”
“the plan does not adequately identify the nature of the positions to be created or detail the basis for his revenue and staffing projections”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the business plan largely discusses generic aspects of the security services industry, not the Petitioner's specific plans”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted

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
  • 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

AAO found the Petitioner materially changed his proposed endeavor after filing (from seeking employment with existing U.S. companies to founding his own firm), citing Matter of Izummi and Matter of Katigbak on impermissible post-filing material changes, though this was treated as part of the prong 1 analysis rather than a separate dispositive basis.

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)
  • Matter of Izummi
  • Matter of Katigbak
  • Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner materially changed his proposed endeavor post-filing to an unformed company, and even under the new plan failed to show national-scale impact—revenue/job projections were unsupported and industry discussion was generic rather than specific.

Transferable lesson

Define the endeavor concretely at filing and keep it consistent; support any job-creation or economic-impact claims with verifiable, endeavor-specific evidence, not generic industry projections.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

national_security · economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

endeavor_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer