NIW Bearings
dismissedDEC112024_05B52032024-12-11 · 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 proposed to operate her own architecture and interior design firm in Massachusetts, serving individuals and businesses across the U.S.

Field: architecture · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“However, the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how she plans to achieve these staffing targets and revenue projections.”
“Without sufficient evidence regarding the projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to her future work”
“although an individual's experience, qualifications, contributions, and achievements are material, they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong.”
“The Petitioner, however, has not shown that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States.”
“We are also not persuaded by the Petitioner's intention to operate her proposed endeavor within a HUB Zone since the Petitioner has not adequately established what parameters the SBA considers when it establishes HUBZones.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “The Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how she plans to achieve these staffing targets and revenue projections.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “The Petitioner has not adequately established what parameters the SBA considers when it establishes HUBZones.”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · ignored

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

The AAO devoted a lengthy footnote to explaining SBA HUBZone eligibility criteria, questioning whether the Petitioner (as sole non-U.S.-citizen owner) would even qualify for the program she cited as evidence of national importance.

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
  • Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to substantiate national importance: job creation/revenue claims unexplained, HUBZone relevance unproven, and evidence focused on personal qualifications rather than endeavor's broader impact.

Transferable lesson

Support economic-impact projections with concrete methodology/evidence and tie the endeavor itself—not personal credentials—to a demonstrable, broad-scale national effect.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement · geographic_or_shortage_area

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer