dismissedMAR262024_03B52032024-03-26 · appeal · Texas Service Center
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 educational and technology platform, incorporating a Learning Management System, to enhance STEM curriculum and connect stakeholders in schools across Massachusetts.
Field: STEM education technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of creating his educational and technology platform rather than the importance of STEM fields, education, occupations, and related topics.”
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his platform largely influences the field and rises to the level of national importance.”
“The record does not show through supporting documentation how his particular endeavor sufficiently extends beyond his prospective students or clients in the Massachusetts area, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his particular future work, the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of opening, owning, and operating his own educational entity”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner argues and references to documentation relating to the general opportunities for the STEM workforce and marketplace”
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
2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO refused to consider a materially changed endeavor (owning/operating an educational entity) introduced on appeal, applying the rule against post-filing changed facts from Matter of Izummi/Bardouille; the decision explicitly states each stated reason is an independent and alternate basis for dismissal.
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. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Izummi
- 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