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, a self-employed educational consultant and former professor in geography education, sought to work as an associate professor at a U.S. university, leading GIS training programs for teachers and students and conducting research integrating GIS with geography education.
Field: geography education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The AAO noted conflicting record evidence about when the Petitioner earned his doctoral degree (temporary certificate says 2005; CV, statements, and education evaluation say 2009), and could not fully assess whether he holds a foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's or higher degree, but reserved this issue because dismissal was resolved on prong 1 grounds.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not established that his instructional and training work at a U.S. university would impact the geography field or GIS learning industries more broadly”
“the Petitioner did not offer a specific proposed endeavor for his intended research work as required under Dhanasar”
“However, the letters do not identify or address his specific prospective endeavor.”
“these articles and reports also do not address the Petitioner's proposed research or his specific endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not identify or address his specific prospective endeavor”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“these articles and reports also do not address the Petitioner's proposed research or his specific endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies.”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The AAO reserved a significant credibility/documentary issue regarding conflicting evidence of the Petitioner's doctoral degree completion date, deciding the case instead on dispositive prong 1 grounds. The decision also cites Flores v. Garland to affirm the discretionary nature of NIW adjudications, and analogizes unfavorably to the specificity of the endeavor found sufficient in Matter of Dhanasar itself.
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)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
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