NIW Bearings
dismissedSEP182023_05B52032023-09-18 · 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, a food service manager with over 16 years of industry experience, proposed to establish a bakery in Florida producing healthy meals, sweets, and desserts, introducing Brazilian culinary traditions with a focus on sweets to Americans.

Field: food service / bakery · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the letters are not probative of the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar”
“A shortage of food service professionals in the United States does not render her proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
“the Petitioner has not established how her independent bakery stands to sufficiently extend beyond her customers to impact the food service sector more broadly”
“The Petitioner did not sufficiently describe the origin or basis for these projections”
“the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “they do not offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend beyond her customers”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “the articles and reports do not discuss any particulars of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its prospective impact rising to the level of national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “The Petitioner did not sufficiently describe the origin or basis for these projections”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the Petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
    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
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
  • Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 expressly reserved the underlying EB-2 exceptional-ability classification issue since the Director never ruled on it and the Petitioner failed to raise it on appeal, deeming it waived; decision also footnotes that labor shortages are properly addressed via the labor certification process, not the NIW national importance prong.

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
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Matter of O-R-E-
  • Matter of R-A-M-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer