NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL022024_05B52032024-07-02 · 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, an agricultural and food science technician, proposed to become an entrepreneur by owning and serving as CEO of a halal meat and dairy farm in New York, with plans to expand to New Jersey.

Field: agriculture and food science · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found, and AAO agreed, that Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification based on a foreign baccalaureate equivalent plus five years of progressive experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“These articles address the growth ofthe halal food market and industry, but they do not mention the Petitioner or his proposed endeavor.”
“The business plan does not explain how the earnings were calculated, provide comparative information of farm earnings in New York, or otherwise show that such earnings would be considered substantial.”
“The business plan does not indicate that the farm has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or that it would have other substantial positive economic effects as contemplated in Dhanasar.”
“The Petitioner also does not establish that his farm's work would otherwise extend beyond his individual consumers to impact agriculture or food science more broadly on a level of national importance.”
“Here, the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond his clientele to impact agriculture or food science more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “does not explain how the earnings were calculated, provide comparative information of farm earnings in New York”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “they do not mention the Petitioner or his proposed endeavor”
    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

The Director had initially refused to consider the Petitioner's business plan as a material change to the endeavor submitted after filing; AAO disagreed and considered it de novo, finding it consistent with the initial proposal, but still found national importance unmet on the merits.

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
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer