NIW Bearings
dismissedAUG062026_02B52032026-08-06 · 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.

As a digital product designer for an automaker, design and modernize enterprise-scale digital infrastructure for commercial mobility, fleet management, dealership networks and connected vehicle operations.

Field: digital product / UX design for automotive enterprise platforms · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint such as the Petitioner, are not sufficiently relevant”
“none of the articles mention the Beneficiary or her planned projects”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work”
“The letters from L-S-, C-D-, B-S-, D-Y-, and W-H- do not contain sufficient information and explanation”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the determination of national importance does not focus on the importance of one's field or industry in general”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
2,589coded 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

Employer-filed NIW petition for a UX designer at a major automaker. All support letters came from the beneficiary's own managers. AAO cited Matter of S-M- that counsel's assertions in a brief are not evidence. National-security and U.S.-China competition articles held irrelevant to the specific endeavor.

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
  • Flores v. Garland

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer