remandedDEC282023_02B52032023-12-28 · 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, a college professor, intended to continue teaching criminal justice and law in the United States, consistent with the O*NET 'Postsecondary Teachers' occupation.

Field: criminal justice and law (postsecondary teaching) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

“the record in this matter does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently impact U.S. interests or the law profession more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”

“she has not demonstrated that her specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation”

AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
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

The AAO found the Director procedurally erred by approving the petition, then issuing an RFE and denying it, rather than following the notice-of-intent-to-revoke (NOIR) procedure required under 8 C.F.R. 205.2 and Matter of Ho/Estime. Despite this procedural defect, the AAO reviewed the merits de novo, agreed with the Director's substantive Prong 1 finding, and remanded for the Director to issue a proper NOIR and enter a new decision consistent with both the correct procedure and the AAO's merits analysis.

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. 103.3
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of E-M-
Matter of Ho
Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petition lacked evidence that her teaching endeavor would impact the law/criminal justice field broadly or create substantial economic/employment effects, mirroring Dhanasar's teaching-activity analysis; also procedural error in denial instead of revocation required remand.

Transferable lesson

For teaching-based endeavors, show concrete broader field impact, employment creation, or economic effects—generic professorship duties alone will not establish national importance.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

field_advancement · economic_job_creation

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer