dismissedAPR212025_11B52032025-04-21 · 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 sought to work as a trainer and educator of financial literacy, founding and leading a company providing financial education and literacy programs to K-12 schools in Florida, particularly in light of a new state law requiring financial literacy courses.
Field: financial literacy education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner or his company, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor”
“he does not identify any specific schools or entities that have been or will be serviced by”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims”
“lack of supporting details and evidence detracts from the credibility and probative value of the Petitioner's claim regarding job creation”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner or his company, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“he does not identify any specific schools or entities that have been or will be serviced by”
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
- 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
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 explicitly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing INS v. Bagamasbad for not needing to make advisory findings; decision also cites Dhanasar itself as an example where teaching activities were found not nationally important.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
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