NIW Bearings
dismissedSEP172024_06B52032024-09-17 · 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 proposed to work as a logistician with IT skills, operating his own trucking company in New York offering regional and long-haul transportation services.

Field: logistics/trucking · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of providing his services as a Logistician through his company in the New York area”
“his submission of articles covers a wide range of topics, such as supply chain issues and efforts to expand and improve trucking jobs, rather than establishing the national importance of his particular professional services or business”
“the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures”
“the Petitioner did not establish that such employment figures would utilize a significant population of workers in the area or would substantially impact job creation and economic growth”
“the record does not demonstrate that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to the level of having national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · ignored
    “we will not consider it for the first time on appeal”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “rather than establishing the national importance of his particular professional services or business”
    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

AAO declined to consider new evidence (revised business plan, letters) submitted for the first time on appeal, citing Soriano and 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(11). Decision cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) on discretionary nature of NIW.

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
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer