NIW Bearings
dismissedFEB102026_02B52032026-02-10 · 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 work as an IT specialist and CEO of his own company, providing enterprise architecture services, SAP transformation advisory, and ERP consulting to U.S. businesses and organizations.

Field: Information Technology / SAP and ERP consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“merely working in an important field or in an area a government entity has described as a priority is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”
“the Petitioner did not identify in the record below or now on appeal how his business model improves upon those processes already available”
“the Petitioner does not present any supporting evidence, corroborating the projections and figures presented in the business plan”
“these assertions are raised by counsel for the first time on appeal, not accompanied with further details on how his proposed endeavor will enhance societal welfare, and not corroborated by the record.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the Petitioner does not present any supporting evidence, corroborating the projections and figures presented in the business plan”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “statements in a brief, motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight”
    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
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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

AAO explicitly reserved judgment on both the EB-2 threshold eligibility and Prongs 2 and 3, finding P1 national importance failure alone dispositive. The decision was issued by SCOPS (Service Center Operations) rather than a named service center. Counsel raised the societal welfare / digital divide argument for the first time on appeal without corroborating evidence, which the AAO specifically called out and rejected.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show his specific endeavor (SAP/ERP consulting) had broader national or global implications beyond serving individual client businesses; unsubstantiated projections and new appellate claims were insufficient.

Transferable lesson

Corroborate economic/job-creation projections with independent evidence and explain concretely how the specific endeavor's impact extends beyond individual clients to a national scale.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

critical_emerging_tech · stem_positive_factor · economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · government_interest

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer