NIW Bearings
dismissedSEP182025_01B52032025-09-18 · appeal

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 former special-forces military officer, proposed to start his own U.S. business providing security consulting, risk assessments, mitigation services, and anti-terrorism training to private and public clients.

Field: security consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The AAO agreed he qualifies for EB-2 classification as an alien of exceptional ability and declined to also decide his alternative claim as an advanced-degree professional, since that finding was unnecessary to the result.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Serving as a consultant to a particular pool of clients does not demonstrate an impact that will extend beyond those customers.”
“The Petitioner's appellate evidence does not detail or explain the claimed national implications of his specific proposed security business.”
“His business plan does not indicate that the organization would generate enough revenues or employ enough U.S. workers to substantially boost the nation's economy.”
“the record does not establish that the organization would 'more broadly' affect the security field or the U.S. economy.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionedestablished

“The record supports SCOPS' finding that, under Dhanasar's second prong, the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed business.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “We therefore will not consider his additional evidence on appeal.”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “The Petitioner's appellate evidence does not detail or explain the claimed national implications of his specific proposed security 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
  • 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
1,358coded 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 AAO declined to consider new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal (school-violence statistics, additional recommendation letters) under Matter of Furtado, since the petitioner had already received an RFE and opportunity to respond; it also noted that even considering this evidence, it would not change the outcome. The AAO expressly reserved the third prong as unnecessary given the dispositive national-importance failure.

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.

  • Matter of Ho
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer