NIW Bearings
dismissedJUN232025_02B52032025-06-23 · appeal

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, a medical scientist, proposed to found his own company in New York offering clinical and laboratory diagnostic services, biochemical R&D partnerships with universities, and training programs for laboratory professionals and foreign-trained physicians.

Field: medical science / biomedical research and clinical diagnostics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found, and AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional under the EB-2 classification.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he has not shown how his endeavor through his company will have a broader impact in the industry, economy, region, or nation beyond the employees and individual clients he will serve.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“beyond these vague descriptions, the plan provides little detail on the specific research projects he will conduct”
“the anticipated expenses do not seem to entirely align”
“he has not explained his revenue data's significance or how that data shows that any potential benefits to the regional or national economy”
“there is little evidence that his future work stands to impact or significantly reduce any claimed national shortages.”
“his opinion is largely conclusory and does not adequately explain how the Petitioner's work, in particular, would produce such nationally important impacts.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “does not provide sufficient detail or evidentiary support for the bases of these projections or adequately explain how these sales and staffing targets will be realized.”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “his opinion is largely conclusory and does not adequately explain how the Petitioner's work, in particular, would produce such nationally important impacts.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “they do not mention or discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor specifically, including how it might impact these fields more broadly”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · ignored

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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • 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 cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) alongside other circuits to affirm that NIW grant/denial is a discretionary determination; appeal dismissed solely on prong 1 national importance, with prongs 2 and 3 expressly reserved under Bagamasbad. A footnote also notes that additional evidence submitted on appeal was already in the record.

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
  • INA 203(b)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer