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 Venezuelan educator and child welfare professional, initially proposed instruction coordination for primary and secondary education focused on child welfare, and later described establishing a mental health counseling organization to help schools and parents detect and address behavioral issues in children through drawing interpretation.
Field: education / child welfare · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; AAO used AACRAO EDGE to confirm degree equivalency despite lack of formal credential evaluation.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework”
“these assertions relate to the importance of education and the child welfare field in general, rather than to the impact of the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“we note that the Petitioner does not address or attempt to overcome the Director's finding that the plan to establish a mental health counseling organization represents an improper material change to the petition after its filing”
“these general, conclusory statements are made without sufficient information or evidence to support them and are, therefore, insufficient for the Petitioner to meet her burden of proof”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“represents an improper material change to the petition after its filing”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- recommendation letter · discounted
“this letter does not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or describe its potential impact”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“these claims do not help demonstrate the potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
Notable
AAO relied on AACRAO EDGE database to establish foreign degree equivalency even though Petitioner submitted no credential evaluation or transcripts. AAO also found Petitioner waived the business-plan-based endeavor claim by not addressing the Director's material-change finding on appeal, then separately analyzed and rejected that same plan on national importance grounds.
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)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(8)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- 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