NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY012024_04B52032024-05-01 · 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 proposed to work as a chemical sales engineer and technical consultant, addressing chemical/biological treatment of industrial water and waste, fire and hazard protection of facilities, and chemical manufacturing and food production processes.

Field: chemical engineering / industrial water and waste treatment · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that her proposed endeavor's prospective impact rises to the level of national importance”
“she submits little explanation or evidentiary support as to how her proposed endeavor would impact water quality on a national level”
“the record does not indicate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
“they do not offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of her proposed endeavor or establish how such impact would extend beyond her customers”
“the author focuses on the Petitioner's over 31 years of experience in the chemical industry. However, the Petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “they do not offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of her proposed endeavor or establish how such impact would extend beyond her customers”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “The opinion letter does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”
    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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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 agreed the endeavor had substantial merit but found national importance unestablished; expert letter focused on petitioner's experience was redirected to prong 2 relevance rather than prong 1. Underlying EB-2 classification eligibility was reserved/not decided.

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

Failure to substantiate, beyond assertion, that her services would have prospective impact rising to a national (rather than employer/customer) scale in water treatment, safety, or economic terms.

Transferable lesson

Support national-importance claims with concrete data or projections showing industry-wide or national scale impact, not generalized claims of benefit or personal expertise.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

public_health · economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer