NIW Bearings
dismissedSEP132023_01B52032023-09-13 · 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 sought to launch and run his own company providing sales and consulting services connecting U.S. medical device manufacturers with the Brazilian market and vice versa.

Field: medical device sales and consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director found the Petitioner qualified as an advanced-degree professional and this was not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“The broader importance of addressing medical device and PPE shortages does not necessarily impart national importance to the Petitioner's specific endeavor as a sales consultant and entrepreneur in the medical supply industry.”
“we need not explore this issue further given that the stated grounds for denial support dismissal of the appeal without having to address the Director's favorable determination concerning national importance”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“it does not establish that he has a record of success in the U.S. medical devices industry, a significant part of his proposed endeavor”
“the letters made no mention of the Petitioner's knowledge of or experience in the medical supply market in the United States”
“The Petitioner did not, however, elaborate on these projections or adequately explain how they were calculated.”
“that contract was executed in September 2022, nearly two years after the instant petition was filed and therefore does not establish that the Petitioner was well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor at the time of filing”
“the record does not reflect sufficient interest from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letters made no mention of the Petitioner's knowledge of or experience in the medical supply market in the United States”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “The Petitioner did not, however, elaborate on these projections or adequately explain how they were calculated.”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “that contract was executed in September 2022, nearly two years after the instant petition was filed”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · credited

Where this case turned

  • Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
  • Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
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 raised procedural arguments that the Director applied 'novel substantive and evidentiary requirements' and an improper standard of proof, but the AAO rejected both for lack of specific factual support, reaffirming the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

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
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer