NIW Bearings
dismissedSEP132021_04B52032021-09-13 · 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 IT/systems professional with project management and business analyst experience in banking and financial systems, proposed to continue working in IT for U.S. companies, possibly as an employee or as an entrepreneur founding his own IT services startup.

Field: information technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO agreed with Director that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a foreign four-year computer science degree plus five years of progressive IT experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not identified his proposed endeavor with sufficient specificity.”
“indicating advancement more for the parties involved than for overall national impact.”
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence to substantiate them.”
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “his opinion carries little weight in this matter.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “his help and these results would be contingent upon those companies hiring him to manage their projects and paying him for his services”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “the article contains no mention of the Petitioner or his specific work in this area.”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · credited

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
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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

Petitioner proposed multiple alternative career paths (employee, project manager, systems engineer, entrepreneur) which the AAO found undermined the specificity required to assess national importance; AAO explicitly stated the NIW program is not meant to enable a job search.

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)
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • INA 291
  • Matter of V-K-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer