The Petitioner, a musician and music educator, proposed to advance music education in the United States by opening a piano studio, producing instructional videos and masterclasses, hosting pedagogy webinars, presenting at conferences, organizing international music festivals and piano competitions, and continuing as a solo pianist.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“SCOPS' reference to specific materials in the record was limited to paraphrasing a statement made by the Petitioner's counsel”

“the decision did not acknowledge the Petitioner's submission of the career plan describing her proposed endeavor or otherwise address her specific claims relating to the endeavor's national importance”

“SCOPS should consider whether the petition contains substance that both explains and corroborates how working in the proposed endeavor meets the 'national importance' standard”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionedestablished

“SCOPS may consider whether the lack of specificity in the Petitioner's 'career plan,' which was submitted for the first time in response to a request for evidence, sufficiently demonstrates a 'model or plan for future activities'”

“SCOPS may consider whether there is sufficient evidence in the record reflecting feasible plans for the financial support for her endeavor or evidence of interest from prospective or potential clients”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished

“SCOPS stated the third prong's balancing analysis and concluded that the Petitioner 'has not established that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification'”

“SCOPS did not adequately explain how the evidence in the record led to that determination”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• other · discounted

  “the decision did not acknowledge the Petitioner's submission of the career plan describing her proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “SCOPS generally listed some of the evidence submitted by the Petitioner”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “SCOPS' reference to specific materials in the record was limited to paraphrasing a statement made by the Petitioner's counsel”

  AAO decision text

Notable

This is a remand, not a denial — the AAO withdrew SCOPS' decision because it was procedurally deficient: it failed to identify the specific proposed endeavor, lacked substantive analysis of submitted evidence, and did not adequately explain reasons for denial as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(i). The AAO expressly noted the evidence 'may ultimately be insufficient' but declined to adjudicate the merits. The prong coding above reflects the AAO's guidance to SCOPS on remand rather than findings of failure. SCOPS had found substantial merit under prong 1 but denied on national importance, prong 2, and prong 3.

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The petitioner, a tattoo artist, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability along with a nationa
• The Petitioner, an MMA athlete and trainer, proposed to operate a jiu jitsu company through which he would train and com
• The Petitioner sought to establish an arts education academy in Ohio, with plans to expand to New York and Michigan, off
• The Petitioner, an art curator, proposed to establish a nonprofit cultural center/platform focused on exhibitions, oral
• The Petitioner, an avant-garde pop artist working with a creative partner, sought to run her own art business creating p