dismissedFEB092024_01B52032024-02-09 · combined · 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, a math teacher, owned and operated an online math tutoring company intended to improve math education and cognitive skills among U.S. children.
Field: math education / online tutoring · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the national implications of her company's projected levels of revenue and workers”
“how her business would benefit an economically depressed area”
“teach math to a nationally important number of U.S. children”
“the company, at least through its initial five years of operation, would tutor only a tiny fraction of U.S. children”
“her activities would significantly advance the fields of math or math education”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“it does not speak to or establish the national importance of her endeavor”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“merely reargue facts and issues we have already considered in our previous decisions”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,312coded 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 flagged that the petitioner's company name changed between filings and cited Matter of Izummi and Matter of Katigbak to warn against post-adjudication material changes to conform a deficient petition to USCIS requirements; this is the petitioner's second combined motion after an initial appeal and first motion were both dismissed 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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of O-S-G-
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