MAY072026_01B5203Decided 2026-05-07I-140

A COO of a fire suppression technology company lost his EB-2 National Interest Waiver appeal because he could not show…

Dismissed Useful for: avoid these mistakes
EB-2-NIWField: Revolutionizing fire suppression technology and scaling innovative businesses that address critical national challenges
The outcome

This appeal was not successful at this stage

The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that his specific endeavor as a COO has national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. The evidence submitted related to the company's technology and the importance of wildfire suppression generally, but did not establish how the Petitioner's individual operational work would broadly impact the field beyond his employer.

In plain English

The Petitioner, a COO of an NSF-funded fire suppression technology company, sought an EB-2 National Interest Waiver, arguing that his work advancing wildfire response solutions was of national importance. While SCOPS and the AAO both agreed the fire suppression field has substantial merit, neither found that the Petitioner's specific COO duties — sales, marketing, operational management, and business development — demonstrated a broad prospective impact on the field itself. The AAO emphasized that national importance must be tied to the individual's own endeavor, not the employer's technology or reputation. Evidence of company-level adoption by government agencies and firefighter testimonials failed because it did not connect to the Petitioner's individual contributions. The appeal was dismissed after analysis of only the first Dhanasar prong.

What worked & what failed

What failed: 1. The Petitioner confused his employer's accomplishments (developing fire suppression technology) with his own individual endeavor (managing company operations), and the record did not bridge this gap. 2. All supporting evidence — government agency adoption, firefighter testimonials, industry reports, and economic impact claims — described the company's technology and the importance of the wildfire field broadly, not the Petitioner's specific COO work. 3. Economic benefit claims were too attenuated, and employer testimonials focused on general operational achievements rather than contributions to the fire suppression field.

Takeaway: For executive or management roles in technically innovative companies, NIW petitions must clearly document how the individual's own specific activities — not merely the employer's products or mission — produce broader field-level impact. Supporting letters and evidence must directly address the petitioner's individual contributions, not just praise the company or describe the field's importance.

For RFE responses & petition building

Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-2-NIW criteria.

Evidence that moved the needle

  • See summary above for details.

Evidence that wasn't enough alone

  • The Petitioner confused his employer's accomplishments (developing fire suppression technology) with his own individual endeavor (managing company operations), and the record did not bridge this gap
  • All supporting evidence — government agency adoption, firefighter testimonials, industry reports, and economic impact claims — described the company's technology and the importance of the wildfire field broadly, not the Petitioner's specific COO work
  • Economic benefit claims were too attenuated, and employer testimonials focused on general operational achievements rather than contributions to the fire suppression field.
Find more EB-2-NIW cases with similar evidence patterns →
How the case moved

Completed

I-140 filed

Chief Operating Officer (COO) and Executive Board Member of a fire suppression technology company

Completed

SCOPS — Denied

Initial decision: Denied.

Completed

Appeal to the AAO

Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.

2026-05-07

AAO decision — Dismissed

The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that his specific endeavor as a COO has national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. The evidence submitted related to the company's technology and the importance of wildfire suppression generally, but did not establish how the Petitioner's individual operational work would broadly impact the field beyond his employer.

If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.

Authorities the office relied on
ChawathePetitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence
Christa'sAAO reviews questions de novo
DhanasarProvides the three-prong framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions
O-R-E-Scrivener's or harmless errors in a decision do not constitute reversible error
E-M-Both the quantity and quality of evidence, including relevance, probative value, and credibility, are considered
Zhao v. HolderThe agency is not required to mention every piece of evidence but must consider the evidence in its entirety
BagamasbadAgencies are not required to make advisory findings on issues unnecessary to the ultimate decision
Flores v. GarlandUSCIS's decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature