NIW Bearings
dismissedJUN122023_05B52032023-06-12 · 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 continue operating his existing Florida-based business as owner, CEO, and sales director, providing interior design, real estate staging, and furniture import/retail services, with plans to employ seven workers within five years.

Field: interior design and furniture import/retail · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner failed to establish 5 years of progressive post-degree experience (advanced degree track) due to vague reference letters lacking dates and supporting business records; also failed to meet at least 3 of 6 exceptional ability criteria due to lack of documentation on licenses, memberships, salary, or recognized contributions.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he concluded that this evidence does not show that the proposed endeavor would have broader implications for the overall field beyond that of the Petitioner's company”
“the record does not show that his proposed endeavor would have importance to the United States in terms of its impact on manufacturing and production of raw materials”
“the focus ofthe first prong in the Dhanasar analytical framework is a petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, not the broader industries or fields in which they work”
“the record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionedestablished

“the reference letters and media described above establish his reputation and connections within the luxury furniture industry, and together with the evidence of his experience as a business manager and entrepreneur show that he is sufficiently well-positioned to advance his endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • resume experience · discounted
    “the letters lack specific dates concerning the work done by or with the Petitioner”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “this evidence does not show that the proposed endeavor would have broader implications for the overall field beyond that of the Petitioner's company”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letter does not expand upon the importance of the Petitioner's endeavor to the U.S. economy or workforce”
    AAO decision text
  • media · credited
  • degree · credited
All 7 evidence items
  • certification membership · ignored
    “the record does not include documentary evidence of the Petitioner's possession of a license or certification related to his occupation, membership in a professional association”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “no independent, documentary evidence to support the Petitioner's claims of his investment”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • 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
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 conducted its own threshold EB-2 analysis that the Director had skipped entirely, finding the Petitioner failed both the advanced-degree and exceptional-ability pathways -- a procedural gap-filling exercise. AAO also reversed the Director on prong 2 (finding it met) but still dismissed based on prong 1 failure and the independently dispositive threshold failure, declining to reach prong 3.

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(g)(1)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
  • Poursina v. USCIS
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show national importance: evidence (business plan, expert letter, client letters) addressed his personal business relationships and industry generalities, not a substantiated broader/national-scale impact of his specific endeavor.

Transferable lesson

Support national-importance claims with documentary proof (financial records, market data) tying the specific endeavor's scale of economic/job impact beyond the local business itself.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer