The Petitioner, an education specialist with a PhD, initially proposed to work as an innovative expert focused on the professionalization of teachers in the United States, later attempting to change this to a character-education program for Asian American immigrants.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not provide sufficient information and details to reflect a specific proposed endeavor as contemplated in Dhanasar”

“the Petitioner made broad arguments regarding the overall importance of education and the education system of the United States but did not explain the potential impact or influence her endeavor of professionalizing teachers would have on education in the United States”

“Here, the Petitioner materially changed her proposed endeavor from professionalizing teachers to character education for Asian Americans”

“the Petitioner did not show how the articles relate to her proposed endeavor of professionalizing teachers”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• resume experience · discounted

  “the record does not demonstrate that she has ever worked for the [] Church as a specialized researcher”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “the Petitioner did not show how the articles relate to her proposed endeavor of professionalizing teachers”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the Petitioner did not support her assertions with independent, objective evidence”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “she is listed as one of 2 researchers when the original [] version shows she was one of 2 research assistants”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · discounted

  “[t]he COCs indicate the petitioner did not conduct research and did not work 40 hours per week”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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
• Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed

Notable

This is a revocation-on-appeal case with two independent, alternate bases for dismissal: failure to meet Dhanasar prong 1 and a separate finding of willful material misrepresentation regarding the Petitioner's professional/research experience (translation discrepancies in published articles, unverifiable church research employment, and unlisted lecturing positions on ETA 750 Part B). The AAO also refused to consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor (shifted from teacher professionalization to Asian-American character education) under Matter of Izummi/Bardouille, adjudicating solely on the originally filed endeavor.

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. 103.2(b)(3)
• Matter of Bardouille
• Matter of Ho
• Matter of Izummi
• Poursina v. USCIS

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