NIW Bearings
dismissedSEP072023_01B52032023-09-07 · 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, an exercise physiologist/wellness specialist, proposed to open her own U.S. company providing pilates, massage, and physiotherapy/rehabilitation services to patients, including veterans and the elderly.

Field: exercise physiology / physical therapy (wellness specialist) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“she did not provide operational details such as the annual revenue she expects to receive, any workers-other than herself-she intends to hire”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
“None of the publications in the record referenced by the Petitioner on appeal ... address the Petitioner, her proposed endeavor”
“the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor will have broader implications beyond benefitting the Petitioner's patients”
“an unsubstantiated generalization about industrywide revenue trends over the course of five years does not lead to any particular conclusion about the Petitioner”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “she did not provide operational details such as the annual revenue she expects to receive”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “does not address any particular detail about the Petitioner's prospective endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • citations publications · discounted
    “the publications do not address the Petitioner or her specific endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “a Congressional bill introduced-but not passed into law-in 2021 nor a memorandum dated 2021 can establish eligibility”
    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
1,312coded 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 improperly relied on post-filing evidence, including a 2021 bill that was never enacted into law and a 2022 White House statement, which the AAO rejected under the rule that eligibility must be established as of the filing date; the AAO also faulted expert-style letters for relying on generalized industry statistics rather than specifics about the Petitioner's own endeavor.

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)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.3
  • Matter of Katigbak
  • Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show national importance under Dhanasar prong one: evidence addressed her personal skills, industry-wide statistics, or post-filing legislation, not the specific endeavor's scale or broader implications beyond her own limited patient base.

Transferable lesson

Support prong-1 national importance with a concrete, filing-date-contemporaneous business plan quantifying jobs, revenue, geographic reach, or field-wide impact—not generic industry data or personal-quality letters.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

public_health · economic_job_creation · stem_positive_factor · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer