dismissedJAN192023_03B52032023-01-19 · 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, holding a PhD in educational psychology, proposed to work as director of student life at a STEM-focused school, combining student counseling/mentoring duties with pedagogical research on gifted education and a two-year student research program.

Field: educational research / gifted education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Petitioner conceded to qualify as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we have insufficient information concerning the proposed endeavor with which to determine whether it has both substantial merit and national importance because the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has not been clearly defined.”

“we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided a specific or consistent proposed endeavor activity such that we can determine its substantial merit and national importance.”

“we conclude that the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that such activities would impact the field of education more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the specific students and school she will serve.”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond land its students to impact the educational field or U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“none of the authors discussed the Petitioner's proposed future endeavor.”
AAO decision text
citations publications · discounted
“this past research acclaim does not in itself establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“the record contains insufficient corroborative evidence that her ideas and teachings have been shared with and implemented by these organizations”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“does not adequately describe her role in those events.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“it is not apparent whether the proposed endeavor involves the Petitioner performing both of these positions either simultaneously or consecutively.”
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 Director had actually found prongs 1 (substantial merit) and 2 satisfied, denying only on national importance/prong 3; AAO on appeal disagreed even with the substantial merit finding and also faulted the Petitioner for an unclear/dual-role endeavor (research vs. counseling/mentoring), ultimately resting dismissal entirely on prong 1 national importance while declining to reach prongs 2 and 3.

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
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer