NIW Bearings
dismissedSEP102021_01B52032021-09-10 · combined · 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 sought to continue work in supply chain management and logistics related to import/export of biofuels, aiming to help U.S. companies leverage business opportunities in the Brazilian ethanol market.

Field: supply chain management / logistics, biofuels and ethanol trading · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the evidence primarily covered information about his past work in the field (not his future plans for the proposed endeavor)”
“only submitting evidence about an industry or field is generally insufficient to meet the requirements of the first Dhanasar prong”
“the professors do not sufficiently identify, analyze, or discuss the nature of the specific work the Petitioner will perform within his prospective endeavor in the United States”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer, its clients and those with whom he may share his knowledge to impact the U.S. economy or the supply chain logistics field more broadly”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the evidence primarily covered information about his past work in the field (not his future plans for the proposed endeavor)”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the professors do not sufficiently identify, analyze, or discuss the nature of the specific work the Petitioner will perform”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the submitted letters do not provide sufficient information regarding the national importance of the specific endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “we will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “These decisions were not published as precedents and therefore do not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications”
    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
  • 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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
2,501coded 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 noted one letter writer improperly conflated EB-2 NIW requirements with EB-1 extraordinary ability criteria. Petitioner attempted to rely on redacted non-precedent AAO decisions as comparators, which AAO rejected as non-binding and insufficiently analogous. New evidence (revised professional plan, 'logistics optimization project') submitted for the first time on appeal was not considered per Matter of Soriano/Obaigbena.

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(c)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer