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, a psychologist, proposed to develop and market to U.S. schools an application that analyzes students' personal and behavioral data to identify risk of violent behavior, so staff could take preventive action.
Field: psychology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO disagreed with the Director's finding that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, citing failure to submit original-language academic records and unresolved inconsistencies among employment letters and a prior visa application regarding her employment dates. However, because the Petitioner was not on notice of these issues, this finding did not form the basis of the dismissal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“these generalized projections are not specific and detailed enough to establish the potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor”
“The Petitioner continues to rely upon the asserted merits of the services she will provide, her personal and professional qualities and achievements, and the general importance of school safety”
“the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“Without both the original foreign language document and a certified English language translation, it is not possible to meaningfully determine whether the translated material is accurate”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“these generalized projections are not specific and detailed enough to establish the potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - media · ignored
“In her brief, the Petitioner does not identify any legal or factual error in the Director's decision.”
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
Notable
AAO found the Petitioner had not established advanced-degree-professional eligibility due to untranslated original academic records and multiple unresolved inconsistencies in employment dates (including conflict with a prior nonimmigrant visa application), but declined to base the dismissal on this because the Petitioner was not on notice; it also declined to analyze exceptional-ability eligibility in the first instance, noting the matter could be remanded if other deficiencies are cured. A footnote states the appeal would have been dismissed on prongs two and three as well, even though those prongs were formally reserved.
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)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Chen v. INS
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a pharmacist, proposed to work in the United States through her own company providing pharmaceutical reg
- The Petitioner, a Brazilian-trained physiotherapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist and entrepreneur in the Un
- The Petitioner, a resident physician in New York holding a Chinese bachelor of medicine (MBBS) degree found equivalent t
- The Petitioner, a music therapist, proposed to establish and expand music therapy services and community music programs
- The Petitioner, a physical therapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist in the United States while operating his