NIW Bearings
dismissedJUN102024_05B52032024-06-10 · 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 sought to create an independent consulting service company conducting scientific research on dietary supplements, developing and validating analytical methods to meet FDA standards, advising pharmaceutical and healthcare product companies, and training professionals.

Field: dietary supplements / pharmaceutical and healthcare product consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications in her field, enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, or substantial positive economic effects”
“the Petitioner has not shown her proposed endeavor's benefits stand to sufficiently extend beyond her clients and the companies she elects to work with”
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the record does not support the Petitioner's general assertions with corroborating evidence”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • 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
2,501coded 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 declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary given dispositive first-prong failure, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues. Petitioner raised an abuse-of-discretion argument against the Director's decision, which AAO did not separately address.

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
  • Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show the specific endeavor's impact extended beyond her own clients/companies to a national economic or societal scale, as required by Dhanasar prong 1.

Transferable lesson

Support national-importance claims with concrete, quantified evidence of scale (jobs, economic effect, field-wide reach)—not just credentials or generic policy alignment.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

public_health · economic_job_creation · government_interest · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer