The Petitioner, an engineer by training, proposed to work as an entrepreneur establishing a non-profit providing STEM education, workshops, competitions, and outreach for Hispanic and low-income students from preschool through high school.

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the letters did not detail achievements or significant contributions the Petitioner made to the field”

“none of the letters were submitted by independent experts in the U.S.”

“it was not sufficiently detailed. For example, it did not include calculations demonstrating the potential income, expenses, cash flow, and a balance sheet of the business.”

“the Petitioner did not submit documentary evidence demonstrating a US bank or other banking institution was providing financial support for the endeavor”

“the letter did not detail interest in investing in the Petitioner's endeavor and documentation demonstrating they had the finances to invest”

“the Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate with material, relevant, or probative evidence that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the letters did not detail achievements or significant contributions the Petitioner made to the field”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “it was not sufficiently detailed”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “did not submit documentary evidence demonstrating a US bank or other banking institution was providing financial support”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · discounted

  “were not sufficient to establish the Petitioner had a record of success in the field”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “no agreements or contracts were submitted between the Petitioner and”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
• Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

AAO acknowledged the Director erroneously imported an 'original contributions that garnered recognition or influence' standard resembling extraordinary-ability criteria, but deemed this harmless error since it was not actually applied as a dispositive legal standard. Petitioner raised abuse-of-discretion arguments citing Buletini and Chursov, which AAO rejected, holding the Director need not address every piece of evidence individually.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• Buletini v. INS
• Matter of Bardouille

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, an assistant professor of Arabic, proposed to continue teaching Levantine-Modern Standard Arabic to U.S.
• The Petitioner, a secondary school teacher, proposed to develop and implement an open educational resource program to ex
• The Petitioner proposed to establish a consulting company in Missouri to design and implement a nationally adaptable tea
• The Petitioner, an arts, drama, and music teacher and entrepreneur, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of excep
• The petitioner, a mathematics teacher with 17 years of experience, proposed to operate a company offering online math tu