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 children's Christian ministry educator and social-media content creator, proposed to continue teaching Christian education to children, including providing services and support to Brazilian immigrant children and families in her city.
Field: children's Christian ministry education / religious education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as advanced degree professional based solely on her Bachelor of Divinity and Education, but AAO found this incomplete because 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2) also requires five years of progressive experience, which the Director did not evaluate; remanded for proper analysis.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“the labor certification process itself is intended to address labor shortages and her proposed endeavor does not appear to alleviate the shortage of teachers”
“the industry or field is not the lens through which we determine if a proposed endeavor is of national importance”
“without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to her future work, we cannot conclude”
“they do not appear to reach the level of broader national or global impact that is required to find an endeavor has national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- media · discounted
“do not speak to the broader implications of her specific endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“a Petitioner must also establish that she has five years of progressive experience in the specialty”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
Unusual remand decision: rather than affirming or reversing the denial, AAO vacated it because the Director's decision was too conclusory to permit review, citing due-process/notice case law (Matter of M-P-) typically seen outside the NIW context. AAO signaled tentative agreement with the denial's outcome on prong one but still remanded for a fuller explanation on all three Dhanasar prongs and the threshold advanced-degree question.
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)
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
The Director's decision lacked any actual analysis of the evidence under Dhanasar or the advanced-degree regulation, making it unreviewable; AAO remanded for a properly reasoned decision rather than affirming denial.
Even where evidence appears weak, adjudicators must explain deficiencies prong-by-prong; petitioners should tie endeavor to field-wide or economic scale, not just personal passion or local community benefit.
vague
field_advancement · economic_job_creation · geographic_or_shortage_area · other
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an assistant professor of Arabic, proposed to continue teaching Levantine-Modern Standard Arabic to U.S.
- The Petitioner, a secondary school teacher, proposed to develop and implement an open educational resource program to ex
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a consulting company in Missouri to design and implement a nationally adaptable tea
- The Petitioner, an arts, drama, and music teacher and entrepreneur, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of excep
- The petitioner, a mathematics teacher with 17 years of experience, proposed to operate a company offering online math tu