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, an instructional coordinator with master's degrees in TESOL and technology management, proposed to develop and implement a virtual reality educational platform for U.S. schools, coordinating a team of software engineers and educators through a company she claimed to own.
Field: education technology / virtual reality educational tools · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on her master's degrees; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to create this product appears at this time to be not much more than an idea that the Petitioner has envisioned”
“there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the Petitioner's claims that the project has the significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
“The Petitioner did not claim to have already selected or hired any employees and stated only that it was her intent to do so”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“appears at this time to be not much more than an idea that the Petitioner has envisioned”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the letters reflect only a nonbinding intent to invest rather than a binding commitment”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the record contains very little specific information about the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“these articles do not discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Notable
AAO noted an unresolved inconsistency: Petitioner described her claimed company as a prior employer in the initial filing (with a different named CEO/owner) but later claimed 100% ownership on motion via a 2021 tax return; AAO cited Matter of Ho for the burden to resolve such inconsistencies. AAO also disagreed with the Director's characterization of the RFE-stage project description as a 'material change,' calling it instead an expansion of the initial concept, though it agreed with the ultimate national-importance conclusion.
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
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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