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 proposed to establish a consulting company in Missouri to design and implement a nationally adaptable teacher training framework focused on physics and science instruction for K-12 educators serving low-income and historically underserved school districts. She aimed to disseminate this replicable framework across multiple school districts nationwide to improve STEM teacher capacity and equity outcomes.
Field: STEM education / teacher training and development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO agreed the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional (Master of Arts in educational leadership and management); threshold EB-2 was not at issue.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“it is not sufficiently clear how she would distribute this model beyond its current parameters within one school district in Missouri.”
“the Petitioner stated that during its first year her company would be in a 'lean pilot mode' with only $10,000 in funding, and that its funding would scale up to only a maximum of $47,500.”
“Her funding projections are not suggestive of a consulting company likely to have a potential prospective national impact on science teacher instruction.”
“the Petitioner's assertions with respect to the development of her science teacher education framework were wholly prospective, leaving substantial uncertainty as to the likelihood of its potential prospective national impact.”
“the Petitioner stated that her proposed endeavor would support [emphasis added] broader U.S. objectives, rather than have a national level impact on them.”
“the Petitioner regularly refers to her framework as scalable, replicable, and adaptable, but does not sufficiently explain how.”
“A mere potential contribution to various matters of national-level interest does not establish that a proposed endeavor is of national importance.”
“the Petitioner provided little support for how this one scholarly work was received in her field, how often it was cited, and whether it was commended in her field.”
“it is not apparent how her claimed innovations, even if explained, would be made publicly available rather than maintained as proprietary information.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner provided few details on how her proposed framework would extend to other districts, institutions, clients, non-profits, and 'educational preparation programs' as claimed.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“support letters from colleagues within her school district in Missouri discussing how her proposed endeavor already operates as a 'replicable model'”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the Petitioner provided little support for how this one scholarly work was received in her field, how often it was cited, and whether it was commended in her field.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's assertions with respect to potential prospective national importance were mainly based on her teaching experience abroad and her employment in one school district in Missouri.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner emphasized that her proposed endeavor aligns with several national initiatives... rather than have a national level impact on them.”
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
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The decision contains a gender inconsistency: the Petitioner is referred to as 'she' throughout the analysis but the Conclusion section uses 'he' and 'him' ('we conclude that he has not established he is eligible'), suggesting a drafting error. The AAO drew an explicit comparison to the Dhanasar petitioner's hypersonic propulsion research to illustrate the evidentiary gap. The AAO also noted that the Petitioner's projected reach of 150 STEM teachers across 10 districts in three years was facially inadequate given her own acknowledgment of a nationwide physics teacher shortage of 15,000–23,000.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner's endeavor evidence (two-school pilot, $10k-$47.5k budget, one article, alignment with federal STEM policies) remained speculative and confined to one Missouri district, failing to show national-scale impact beyond aspirational claims of scalability.
Support 'scalable/replicable' claims with concrete funding, dissemination plans, and evidence of adoption beyond one employer/district to prove national-level impact, not just alignment with federal priorities.
moderate
stem_positive_factor · government_interest · field_advancement · geographic_or_shortage_area
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, 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
- The Petitioner, a special needs/special education teacher, initially proposed to continue working as a special education