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 initially proposed to continue working as an education administrator in the U.S., but in response to an RFE stated her overall proposed endeavor was to work as an entrepreneur opening at least three education-sector businesses.
Field: education administration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO withdrew the Director's finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, citing unresolved discrepancies in the foreign credential evaluation regarding the length/equivalency of her three-year 'licenciado' degree and the evaluator's failure to review employment letters establishing five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience; remanded for the Director to redetermine threshold eligibility.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“her "overall proposed endeavor in the U.S. is to work as an entrepreneur within the field of education" and "to open at least three businesses based in the education sector."”
“The Director should determine whether the information provided by the Petitioner in the RFE response provided more specificity to the proposed endeavor as initially described or added an additional endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“he fails to address not only the length of the Petitioner's program, but also the discrepancies between EDGE's stated equivalency and his own conclusion”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letters do not indicate the number of hours the Petitioner worked per week”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
The AAO did not reach the substantive Dhanasar merits analysis; instead it remanded on two threshold/foundational issues: (1) unresolved discrepancies in a foreign credential evaluation used to establish EB-2 advanced-degree eligibility, and (2) whether the Petitioner's RFE response describing a new entrepreneurial endeavor constituted an impermissible material change from the endeavor described at filing, citing Matter of Izummi and Matter of Michelin Tire Corp.
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.
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Threshold EB-2 eligibility (foreign degree equivalency and work experience) was unresolved, and the proposed endeavor was inconsistently described between filing and RFE, precluding any Dhanasar prong analysis.
Establish degree/experience equivalency with reliable, consistent evidence at filing, and define one specific endeavor upfront—later material changes via RFE will not cure a deficient initial filing.
vague
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 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