NIW Bearings
dismissedSEP102024_04B52032024-09-10 · 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, an urban planner employed by a Swedish consulting firm, proposed to open an urban planning department at the firm's Virginia office and work on '15-minute city' sustainable urban design projects, potentially also starting her own consultancy.

Field: urban planning · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Petitioner established a foreign equivalent degree above a bachelor's degree (master's in sustainable urban planning and design), satisfying the advanced degree professional category; exceptional ability not reached.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Instead, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of starting an urban planning department atl !Virginia branch and working on 15-minute city projects nearby.”
“The record does not show through supporting documentation how the Petitioner's endeavor sufficiently extends beyond her employer and any prospective clients to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“the Petitioner does not explain or demonstrate how her particular proposed endeavor would have projected U.S. economic impact or job creation.”
“However, the matter here is not whether these topics and initiatives are nationally important.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • degree · credited
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letters do not show the broader impact of the Petitioner's work rather than limited to her specific clients.”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “the Petitioner does not explain or demonstrate how her particular proposed endeavor would have projected U.S. economic impact or job creation.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the matter here is not whether these topics and initiatives are nationally important.”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
  • 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
  • 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 cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) for the proposition that NIW grants are discretionary in nature, an unusual circuit-court citation in an AAO decision. A footnote also notes ambiguity in the record about whether the proposed urban planning consultancy would be part of her existing employment or a separate business.

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.

  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer