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 Beneficiary, an assistant professor of classics, proposed to teach classics and conduct research on ancient inscriptions, aiming to preserve and catalog U.S. epigraphical resources.
Field: classics / epigraphy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO agreed the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“However, while the Petitioner established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not show it has national importance.”
“The matter here is not whether epigraphical and palaeological studies are nationally important.”
“the Petitioner does not provide specific details as to how the Beneficiary's endeavor would extend beyond her students or those studying epigraphy”
“these letters do not sufficiently explain the national importance of her specific endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong.”
“they do not sufficiently identify, analyze, or discuss how the Petitioner's proposed work will broadly impact the United States.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters do not sufficiently explain the national importance of her specific endeavor”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“The matter here is not whether epigraphical and palaeological studies are nationally important.”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“The matter here is not whether epigraphical and palaeological studies are nationally important.”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the Petitioner does not provide specific details as to how the Beneficiary's endeavor would extend beyond her students”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
Notable
AAO found prong 1 dispositive and expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-. The decision distinguishes field-level importance (epigraphy generally) from the specific endeavor's national importance, echoing Dhanasar's own teaching-activity analysis.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a senior principal biostatistician, proposes to develop innovative statistical and machine-learning meth
- The Petitioner proposed to use advanced deep learning and machine learning models to create efficient, safe, and well-pe
- The Petitioner proposes to advance machine learning methods for the design and optimization of advanced metamaterials an
- The Petitioner, a postdoctoral chemist, proposed to continue developing high-performance materials and novel synthetic m
- The Petitioner proposes to design novel sensor data processing methods and machine learning algorithms for smart wearabl