NIW Bearings
dismissedAPR292026_04B52032026-04-29 · appeal · SCOPS 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 proposed to create a company providing data protection and legal compliance services for personal data, initially focused on the educational sector, with plans to expand to healthcare and businesses through consulting, audits, policy development, and AI-powered risk assessment tools.

Field: data security and compliance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS and AAO both confirmed the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a five-year Brazilian law degree equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate plus at least five years of progressive post-degree work experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“it is not the overall importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual intends to work, but the particular endeavor on which an individual intends to embark that we consider”
“neither the business plan nor other documentation included in the record elaborates on a platform that the Petitioner has developed to form the basis of his endeavor.”
“he has not explained how his company would have a national-level impact beyond general assertions.”
“The business plan, however, does not explain how these forecasts were calculated or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized”
“The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to show that he would employ a significant population of workers in a particular region”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “much of the record discussing his proposed endeavor is not corroborated by supporting evidence.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “This documentation highlights important issues regarding data security and evolving technologies, and the Petitioner emphasizes that the alignment of his endeavor with cybersecurity initiatives demonstrates its national importance.”
    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
1,312coded 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

SCOPS had already found prong 1 substantial merit AND prong 2 satisfied, but denied on national importance (part of prong 1) and prong 3. The AAO on appeal focused solely on national importance under prong 1 and declined to reach prong 3, effectively agreeing with SCOPS on a narrower ground. The AAO also noted that logistical gaps relevant to prong 2 (e.g., partnership access, staffing qualifications) were also pertinent to prong 1's prospective impact analysis, illustrating cross-prong reasoning.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to corroborate claims about his platform, programs, and economic projections with evidence, leaving national-scale impact of his specific company unproven beyond general industry importance assertions.

Transferable lesson

Support endeavor-specific claims (technology, partnerships, growth projections) with concrete corroborating evidence, not just industry-level importance and unverified business-plan projections.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

critical_emerging_tech · economic_job_creation · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer