NIW Bearings
dismissedAPR212023_01B52032023-04-21 · 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 initially proposed to work as an independent business consultant serving small and medium-sized businesses, but in response to an RFE described a new plan to operate a trucking logistics company as its Operations Manager.

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

EB-2 threshold — not met

The Petitioner's foreign 'economist' diploma was not shown to be equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate degree; the submitted credential evaluation was conclusory, improperly combined work experience with a non-baccalaureate degree, and misapplied an H-1B-specific 'three-for-one' formula, so he did not establish eligibility as an advanced-degree professional.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“the record lacks evidence to support its merit”
“he has not shown that his proposed consulting services would have broader implications for the U.S. economy or small businesses on a national level, beyond the relatively small number of businesses that he would serve.”
“Although the Petitioner provides several statistics regarding the importance of small businesses in the United States, he did not submit documentary evidence to support these statements.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“those letters lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate a record of success relating to his proposed endeavor.”
“the Petitioner did not provide any details or supporting documentation regarding the startup and development of his consulting business”
“he has not demonstrated that he is well positioned to advance his initial proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • degree · discounted
    “it will not be given evidentiary weight”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate a record of success relating to his proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “did not provide any details or supporting documentation regarding the startup and development of his consulting business”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
  • Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
  • Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
2,501coded 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 found the Petitioner's RFE response describing a new trucking logistics venture constituted an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi/Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., so it evaluated the NIW claim only on the originally proposed business-consulting endeavor even though it had already found the underlying EB-2 classification unmet on degree-equivalency grounds; the third Dhanasar prong was expressly reserved under INS v. Bagamasbad.

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 Izummi
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer