NIW Bearings
dismissedOCT162025_02B52032025-10-16 · 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, an urban and regional planning researcher, proposed to enhance the safety and security of U.S. public transportation systems by integrating advanced technologies into a real-time monitoring and response system, including assessing existing transit security and implementing smart surveillance.

Field: urban and regional planning / public transportation security · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS and AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree based on a master's degree in community and regional planning.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude that the record does not establish the broader implications of her proposed endeavor on the public transportation industry as Dhanasar requires.”
“the authors describe the proposed endeavor's impact with general assertions and do not include sufficient supporting evidence in order for us to determine her proposed endeavor has national or global implications”
“the record does not provide information on how much money her proposed endeavor will invest in public transportation in order to use this formula to estimate how many jobs her proposed endeavor will create.”
“the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor.”
“While her work may be in the public transportation field, that alone does not equate to national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the authors describe the proposed endeavor's impact with general assertions and do not include sufficient supporting evidence”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the record does not provide information on how much money her proposed endeavor will invest in public transportation in order to use this formula”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · credited

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
  • 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 cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) confirming NIW grant/denial is discretionary, joining other circuits. Petitioner's argument that SCOPS used inconsistent pronouns was rejected as harmless/scrivener's error under Matter of O-R-E-. Second and third Dhanasar prongs expressly reserved as unnecessary under Bagamasbad.

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 O-R-E-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Record failed to show the specific endeavor's broader impact beyond generic industry importance—letters and reports were conclusory, unsupported by evidence of scale, novelty, or job/economic figures tied to this endeavor.

Transferable lesson

Support national-importance claims with specific, quantified, endeavor-tied evidence (locations, funding, job numbers, novelty) rather than generalized industry or field importance.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

public_health · economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · government_interest · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer