The Petitioner, a math teacher, proposed to design and implement transformative mathematics education programs for adult learners in the United States through a company he formed, using differentiated instruction and technology.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not demonstrate the significant potential of his proposed endeavor to employ U.S. workers or to generate other substantial economic benefits”

“He has not explained how a business with five employees, 400 clients, and total revenues of $178,955 would have economic impact at a nationally significant level.”

“We agree that, near his proposed business, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would help combat adult innumeracy. But, to obtain a national interest waiver, he must show that his specific proposed endeavor has broader, national implications.”

“he has not demonstrated that others in his field could access his mathematical education programs or their proposed distribution on a nationally significant level”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “He has not explained how a business with five employees, 400 clients, and total revenues of $178,955 would have economic impact at a nationally significant level.”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “the articles and studies that the Petitioner submitted do not establish the claimed national importance of his proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “he has not documented his intent to headquarter his company in a specific Opportunity Zone”

  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
• 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

Notable

AAO explicitly found the Director's RFE contained erroneous statements (mischaracterizing continued employment as insufficient for an endeavor, and requiring 'immediate demand' evidence under the wrong prong) and that the Director inaccurately described the entire city as an Opportunity Zone, but held these errors harmless because the Petitioner did not show they affected the outcome, citing Salmeron-Salmeron and Matter of O-R-E- on harmless/scrivener's errors.

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
• Buletini v. INS
• Matter of O-R-E-

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