dismissedJAN112024_08B52032024-01-11 · combined · 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 create a virtual reality education tool/product for use in schools, including a student portal and VR-based lesson content for students.
Field: virtual reality education technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record did not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework”
“the record contains very little specifics about the proposed product, such as what it will look like, what capabilities it will have, and any details about the hardware, software, or content”
“this is not probative, credible evidence that helps show that the use of this product has the potential to have a broad impact on education”
“These lesson plans do not provide support for the claims...that the proposed...product will be "unique and innovative,"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan states that the product has not yet been created”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“they have not yet provided any money nor that they have provided only nonbinding statements of intent”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter is unsigned, undated, lacks details about the letter writer's qualifications as an expert on this topic”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner copies and resubmits large sections of text from her initial filing, the response to the request for evidence”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“they relate to a different educational program and do not establish any relevant facts related to the proposed project”
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
2,589coded 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 declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 both on the underlying appeal and again on motion, citing Bagamasbad for not making advisory findings on unnecessary issues. The petitioner's own initial filing had mischaracterized her relationship to the company she founded (it was initially presented as a prior employer owned by another individual), though this was not dispositive.
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)(i)
- 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)
- Matter of Coelho
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