The Petitioner proposed to found and operate a bilingual, multicultural after-school program for school-aged children, offering homework help, cultural and language instruction, and classes in art, dance, and technology, with a focus on the Hispanic community.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The plan does not, however, clarify the location in which the startup company would operate”

“the business plan's indication that four teachers and tutors, respectively, will provide the company's instructional and childcare services within the first five years of operation, is minimal and consistent with low anticipated participation within a limited area”

“the record does not establish how the employment of a total of 15 workers, including the Petitioner, in some unspecified location, demonstrates the type of broader implications like "significant potential to employ U.S. workers"”

“generalized information in the record regarding education, childcare, and bilingualism ... does not establish how the specific proposed endeavor may have national importance”

“the record does not establish the particular location where the company would provide its services ... nor does it establish how many other after-school childcare programs in that unspecified location already provide bilingual services”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “The plan does not, however, clarify the location in which the startup company would operate”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the Petitioner informed USCIS in December 2023 that she relocated approximately 625 miles away”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “her prior academic and work history is immaterial to determining whether the specific, prospective, proposed endeavor may have national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “generalized information ... does not establish how the specific proposed endeavor may have national importance”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “even more generally "[a]ll [e]vidence from [i]nitial [p]etition and RFE response"”

  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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

The AAO's analysis is notable for methodically re-sorting the Petitioner's evidence across Dhanasar prongs, explaining that prior work/academic history belongs to prong 2 and generalized field information belongs to prong 1's 'substantial merit' element, neither of which addresses the specific endeavor's national importance. The decision also highlights an unresolved factual inconsistency: a supporting letter of interest tied to a New Jersey school location, undercut by the Petitioner's subsequent relocation ~625 miles away, leaving the endeavor's location undetermined.

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-

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
• The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
• The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers