NIW Bearings
dismissedSEP212023_02B52032023-09-21 · 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 operate a Florida-based consulting company providing construction, management, and real estate services to Brazilian and U.S. investors, and to facilitate cross-border investments between the U.S. and Brazil.

Field: real estate / construction consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO reserved the EB-2 exceptional-ability classification issue, noting the Director erred procedurally by not conducting a proper two-part analysis, but did not resolve it since the NIW prong 1 failure was dispositive.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework”
“The Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated that the endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the nation”
“The financial and job forecast data, however, does not appear to have any basis”
“this and other generalized statements concerning the company's potential are not supported by probative evidence in the record”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact the real estate industry or the U.S. economy more broadly”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “generalized statements concerning the company's potential are not supported by probative evidence in the record”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “The financial and job forecast data, however, does not appear to have any basis”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “does not speak to the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor to manage a company developing real estate”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “does not speak to the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor to manage a company developing real estate”
    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
  • 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 criticized the Director's flawed EB-2 exceptional-ability analysis (skipping the two-part evidentiary/final-merits framework) but reserved the issue since the NIW prong 1 failure was dispositive; also noted the business plan's claimed HUBZone/SBA benefits were not substantiated in the plan itself, and one cited economically-depressed area was in Mississippi, not the petitioner's proposed Florida location.

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)
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer