The Petitioner sought to attract more American students to STEM fields and bridge the gender gap in STEM through a nonprofit organization he established, offering training, camps, scholarships, mentoring, and consulting.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he has not shown this collaboration with I I has broader implications beyond the students in the program at that institution”

“he indicated in his business plan that his nonprofit organization would create a total of 1,600 jobs around the country by the end of its fifth year and projected total revenues of $1,820,000 by the end of year one and $9,100,000 by the end ofyear five. However, he did not present any supporting evidence corroborating these assertions and figures”

“The evidence relating to the Petitioner's education and past projects in other areas does not indicate that his current proposed endeavor promoting and supporting STEM education through is nationally important”

“the record does not show through supporting documentation how the Petitioner's endeavor of attracting more American students to STEM fields and bridging the gender gap in those fields through his nonprofit organization will impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “he did not present any supporting evidence corroborating these assertions and figures”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the letters do not show the broader impact of the Petitioner's work rather than limited to the specific students he has helped”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the evidence does not indicate any progress toward this goal aside from filing an application to establish a nonprofit organization in New York”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · ignored

  “he did not provide data to indicate that the number of students involved in the project ... is a significant percentage of that institution's student population”

  AAO decision text

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 withdrew several of the Director's factual errors (mischaracterization of endeavor, erroneous references to unrelated fields) as harmless, but still affirmed dismissal on national importance grounds; footnote observes that STEM-related endeavors often meet national importance but this one, focused on outreach/support rather than STEM work itself, did not.

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)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-

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