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 education specialist, initially proposed to focus on professionalizing teachers, but later described her endeavor as developing a character education and psychological support program for Asian Americans and recent Asian immigrants in the U.S.
Field: education (teacher professionalization / character education for Asian Americans) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Prior decision found she qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; not contested on motion.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner materially changed her proposed endeavor from professionalizing teachers to character education for Asian Americans”
“the Petitioner did not provide sufficient information and details to reflect a specific proposed endeavor as contemplated in Dhanasar”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the documentation provided on motion concerning her professional experience and her proposed endeavor do not constitute new evidence”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“Any expansions or clarifications on her past experiences and her proposed endeavor involve documentation previously requested and are therefore not new”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“we accord it little weight because it appears only after the Petitioner had opportunities to submit such evidence”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
This is a combined motion to reopen/reconsider following a prior appeal dismissal; the Petitioner also disputed a willful-misrepresentation finding tied to mistranslated career documents and a disputed ETA signature, which the AAO separately upheld as an independent, non-dispositive basis for denial. The AAO declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 given prong 1's dispositive failure.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- INA 291
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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