dismissedDEC262023_01B52032023-12-26 · appeal · Texas 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 sought to open an education center providing services for children ages 0-5 with special needs and after-school courses for children ages 4-11.
Field: education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor, including operating her own business, sufficiently extends beyond her company and its clientele to impact the industry or the field more broadly”
“the record does not show through supporting documentation how her specific education center stands to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective students to impact the industry or the U.S . economy more broadly”
“the Petitioner must establish the national importance of her business rather than the importance of education, small businesses, entrepreneurism, and immigration”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not show through supporting documentation how her specific education center stands to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective students”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
- other · discounted
“The Petitioner's contentions and submissions of industry articles and reports relates to the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor rather than the national importance.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“she does not identify what these contributions are or how they affected the field”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner's brief on appeal reads quite similarly to the letter she submitted with her response to the Director's notice of intent to deny.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,501coded 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 adopts and affirms the Director's decision under Matter of Burbano rather than conducting fresh analysis, while also independently reviewing and agreeing with the Director's Dhanasar prong 1 findings. Distinguishes the case from Dhanasar itself regarding teaching activities lacking national importance.
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 L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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