NIW Bearings
dismissedSEP072022_01B52032022-09-07 · 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, a business management consultant, proposed to continue advising U.S. and Brazilian companies on organizational efficiency, growth strategies, and continuous-improvement methodologies, while also lecturing and training professionals in the field.

Field: business management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“this evidence is insufficient to establish how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have an impact rising to the level of national importance”
“the proposed endeavor stands to primarily impact the individuals and businesses that hire the Petitioner for his services”
“Simply stating that certain statistical results occurred for a company because of the Petitioner's services does not establish a causal link supported by evidence”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the specific endeavor”
“does not provide sufficient evidence to corroborate the conclusions he makes concerning the impact of the proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the claimed impact appears to be localized to the particular project or company that hired the Petitioner”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “in taking the past results the Petitioner achieved for other companies and extrapolating them ... we still cannot conclude that the impact would reach a level of national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “the articles mention neither the Petitioner by name nor his specific services”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “his opinion restates large portions of the claims the Petitioner made concerning the national importance of the proposed endeavor, but he does not add sufficient analysis or corroborating details”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
2,589coded 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 unsuccessfully argued for a one-to-one comparison of his evidence to that of Dr. Dhanasar himself, which the AAO rejected as inapposite given the differing endeavors (business consulting vs. hypersonic propulsion research). The AAO also expressly applied the January 2022 USCIS Policy Manual guidance on entrepreneurial/STEM NIW petitioners but still found national importance unestablished.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
  • Matter of E-M-
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS
  • Section 291 of the Act

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer