NIW Bearings
dismissedFEB062026_05B52032026-02-06 · 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 provide occupational health and safety training, workshops, consulting, and research services to small and medium-sized enterprises in rural, economically depressed areas of Indiana, with the goal of improving workplace safety conditions and stimulating local economies.

Field: occupational health and safety · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS and AAO agreed the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; threshold EB-2 was not at issue.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner provided a wide array of vague assertions regarding the focus of his proposed endeavor leaving question as to its potential prospective national impact.”
“the Petitioner again did not describe these proposed services in detail, such as the specific nature of the virtual training, consulting, and risk assessment services he would provide”
“the Petitioner's assertions of potential prospective national importance are non-specific and based on a wide range of potential national level impacts related to various government initiatives.”
“It is not clear how the Petitioner's services would have a impact beyond the immediate clients of his company or have far-reaching societal and economic impacts”
“the endeavor he proposed is focused only on one portion of Indiana.”
“A mere potential contribution to various matters of national-level interest does not establish that a proposed endeavor is of national importance.”
“The Petitioner did not submit sufficiently specific and targeted business plans to demonstrate broad-based national level impact.”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letter from Dr. C-L- is generic and provides little detail as to the specific nature of the Petitioner's services and how they would have a national impact”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “these only discuss a loose relation between his proposed endeavor to large national initiatives; a mere potential contribution to a large national issue does not demonstrate national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “The Petitioner did not submit sufficiently specific and targeted business plans to demonstrate broad-based national level impact.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the Petitioner's wide-ranging assertions as to potential prospective national impact crossing numerous societal issues and government initiatives leaves substantial question”
    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
  • Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
  • 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 explicitly declined to reach prong 3, reserving it as unnecessary given the dispositive prong 1 failure. Notably, prong 2 was also not analyzed. The AAO drew a direct comparison to the Dhanasar petitioner's hypersonic propulsion research to illustrate the contrast with the Petitioner's locally focused consulting business. The AAO also highlighted that the Petitioner's proposed business was geographically limited to one portion of Indiana and projected only 16 employees and $54,480 in annual tax revenue by year five, finding this insufficient to demonstrate significant national economic impact.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner's endeavor was tied to numerous broad government initiatives and generic societal benefits without specific, credible evidence that his localized consulting business would have a nationally significant impact.

Transferable lesson

Quantify and directly link the endeavor's specific mechanism to a nationally scaled impact; avoid listing multiple broad government priorities without concrete proof of significant contribution to any one.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

government_interest · economic_job_creation · public_health · geographic_or_shortage_area

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer