dismissedDEC192023_03B52032023-12-19 · appeal · Nebraska Service Center

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 initially proposed to work as an independent consultant advising on a 'finger games' methodology for developing motor skills in primary schools, then later claimed to intend to open and operate their own preschool/daycare facility employing several workers.

Field: early childhood education / textile technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

The Petitioner's credential evaluation improperly combined a foreign bachelor's degree with a separate certificate to claim U.S. master's equivalency, and the record lacked an official academic record verifying the foreign bachelor's degree itself; exceptional-ability eligibility was also unsupported.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner's transfiguration of their proposed endeavor from the initial petition to the response to the RFE introduced significant ambiguity into their proposed endeavor which prevented analysis into its substantial merit or national importance.”

“The Dhanasar framework cannot be applied to two dueling proposed endeavors.”

“It is not possible to determine the substantial merit and national importance of an endeavor when a Petitioner cannot consistently articulate the nature of the endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“the credential evaluation... is not probative to establish the Petitioner's categorical eligibility for classification”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · ignored
business plan · ignored
certification membership · ignored

Where this case turned

Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking

1,581coded 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 withdrew the Director's favorable finding on categorical EB-2 eligibility sua sponte, citing unresolved degree-equivalency problems, but declined to remand on that issue because the case was dispositively resolved on Prong 1 grounds involving the Petitioner's substantial mid-case shift in proposed endeavor (from independent consultant to daycare owner/operator), which the AAO treated as creating 'two dueling proposed endeavors' incompatible with the Dhanasar framework.

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
Matter of Izummi
Matter of Katigbak
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer