NIW Bearings
dismissedSEP192024_01B52032024-09-19 · appeal · Nebraska 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 intended to own and operate his own digital marketing consulting firm, providing market research, development strategies, marketing campaign management and analytics, and related online courses/training.

Field: digital marketing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director and AAO agreed Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on his Brazilian civil engineering degree and five years of progressive post-degree experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not contain specific detail or relevant probative evidence as to the innovative and novel methods that the Petitioner claims will set his proposed endeavor apart”
“these projection lack corroborating evidence that would objectively substantiate them, and the record does not show how he will specifically achieve them”
“he has not persuasively explained, and the record...does not demonstrate how his proposed work would have the broader implications for the industry and U.S. economy”
“the record does not contain any probative evidence that the claimed indirect economic impact would be directly attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
“he does not specifically claim that his proposed endeavor itself, which is primarily entrepreneurial and service-oriented in nature, is inherently a STEM enterprise”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “these projection lack corroborating evidence that would objectively substantiate them, and the record does not show how he will specifically achieve them”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the referenced evidence and assertions focus on his experience, skills, and other potentially available resources and relates to Dhanasar's second prong”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the referenced evidence and assertions focus on his experience, skills, and other potentially available resources and relates to Dhanasar's second prong”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “it is unclear how HUBZones are identified and whether they necessarily include or impact economically depressed areas”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · credited

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 found threshold EB-2 eligibility met but denied on Prong 1 alone, declining to address Prongs 2 and 3 under Bagamasbad. Notable discussion of HUBZone and economic multiplier arguments being rejected for lack of corroboration, and rejection of STEM-field claim since the endeavor itself (entrepreneurial/service-oriented) was not shown to be inherently STEM.

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)
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of E-M-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer