dismissedMAY112026_01B52032026-05-11 · appeal

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 mathematics teacher with 17 years of experience, proposed to operate a company offering online math tutoring, math camps, STEM instructor consultancy, and academic counseling nationwide, framing it as addressing a national STEM/math proficiency shortage.

Field: mathematics/STEM education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found, and AAO did not dispute, that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not illustrate how her specific endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond her company, clients, and the individuals she teaches and trains”

“Working in an important field is insufficient in and of itself to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

“But these claims tying her proposed endeavor to these impacts are too attenuated and lack sufficient corroborating evidence”

“There is little evidence that her future work training educators stands to impact or significantly reduce any claimed national shortage.”

“they are largely conclusory and do not specifically explain how the Petitioner's work...would produce such nationally important impacts”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“provides only high-level summaries and broad objectives of her intended services without specific details”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“largely conclusory and do not specifically explain how the Petitioner's work...would produce such nationally important impacts”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“provide general background information...but do not establish how her future work would impact these fields more broadly”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

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 disagreed with SCOPS' additional finding that the Petitioner materially changed her proposed endeavor in response to the RFE, concluding the business plan merely elaborated on the same endeavor; nonetheless dismissed on national importance grounds and expressly reserved the second and third prongs under Bagamasbad.

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
8 C.F.R. 103.5
Flores v. Garland

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show her specific endeavor's impact would extend beyond her company and clients to a level of national importance; claims of broader reach were conclusory and evidentially unsupported.

Transferable lesson

Tie the endeavor's mechanism and projected reach to concrete, corroborated evidence of scale beyond the petitioner's own clients—general field importance or personal credentials cannot substitute.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

stem_positive_factor · critical_emerging_tech · economic_job_creation · geographic_or_shortage_area · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer