NIW Bearings
dismissedNOV072025_01B52032025-11-07 · 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 UX/web designer, sought to operate a newly established U.S. company providing AI-driven, user-centered design solutions across industries, later emphasizing development of IoT-enabled smart footwear and foot-health monitoring technology.

Field: UX/UI and web design; footwear/IoT design technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found, and AAO agreed, that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner submitted a wide array ofproposed endeavors leaving substantial uncertainty as to their potential prospective national impact.”
“A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”
“The provided business plan projects that the Petitioner's company would generate 88 jobs and nearly $24 million in revenue during the first five years of its operation.”
“our focus is not on the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the Petitioner submitted little support for these projections”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “it is not clear how these designs relate to her asserted footwear design technology”
    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
  • 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
  • Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
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 reversed the Director's finding on substantial merit (finding it met) but still dismissed on national importance, citing a shifting and inconsistent description of the proposed endeavor (from general AI/UX design to IoT-enabled footwear) and invoking the material-change-of-petition doctrine from Matter of Izummi. Cross-prong reasoning: business plan speculativeness and economic claims were addressed within the prong 1 national importance analysis rather than prong 2/3.

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(k)(2)
  • Flores v. Garland
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of Ho
  • Matter of Izummi

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner presented shifting, inconsistent endeavors (UX company, footwear tech, multiple apps) with unsupported claims of impact across many industries, preventing any finding of a specific endeavor's national importance.

Transferable lesson

Define one concrete endeavor early and keep it consistent through RFE/appeal; support economic/impact projections with objective evidence, not conclusory industry-wide statistics.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

critical_emerging_tech · stem_positive_factor · economic_job_creation · public_health · us_competitiveness · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer