NIW Bearings
dismissedSEP062024_03B52032024-09-06 · 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.

The petitioner, a sales operations manager, proposed to work as CEO of his own consulting corporation providing sales strategy, revenue generation, and business consulting services to companies across various trade sectors.

Field: sales operations / business consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not reflect the proposed endeavor has national importance because it lacks prospective impact”
“the record lacks specific and detailed information as to how the proposed company, and the Petitioner's role as CEO of the company, would have a national impact”
“the matter here is not whether sales managers and other aspects of sales within a company are nationally important”
“the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence corroborating the assertions and figures”
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the business plan's claimed revenue, even if credible or plausible, has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence corroborating the assertions and figures”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “cover a wide range of topics, such as implementation of best practices, rather than establishing the national importance of his particular professional services”
    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
  • 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

AAO cites Deloitte report and Accenture study submitted by petitioner as general industry evidence, found too generic to establish national importance of the specific endeavor. Also cites Fifth Circuit's Flores v. Garland on discretionary nature of NIW grants.

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
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer