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 create an online platform and 'Tech Community' of training and development centers to teach software technology skills to young immigrants, particularly Hispanic and Latino youth, to help them access certification and jobs in tech.
Field: software technology / technology training · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree based on a U.S. equivalent master's degree in software engineering.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner's evidence regarding national importance consisted of generalized articles and government reports that do not specifically address his endeavor”
“these letters of interest do not corroborate the specific nature or numerosity of projects to support the Petitioner's claims that his endeavor will have a broad impact”
“the Petitioner has not offered a sufficiently direct connection between his proposed endeavor activities and any demonstratable societal welfare or substantial economic activities”
“the record does not provide detailed plans for operating his program, i.e., a business plan, or its specific impact, aside from generalized claims and statements”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“generalized articles and government reports that do not specifically address his endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“did not address the endeavor's specific impact or special methodologies attributable to the Petitioner”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record does not provide detailed plans for operating his program, i.e., a business plan”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
Petitioner argued the Director's decision constituted an 'abuse of discretion' by failing to individually address each piece of evidence, citing Buletini v. INS; the AAO rejected this framing, clarifying that reasoned consideration does not require addressing every claim or evidentiary item, citing Xiao Ji Chen and Morales v. INS.
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
- Buletini v. INS
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
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