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 learning specialist with a doctorate in educational leadership, proposed to provide individualized academic support and assessments to struggling college students while researching and developing a retention program to address student attrition, and possibly launching a related website.
Field: education / student retention and academic advising · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director and AAO agreed the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on her doctorate.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record still lacks detail and specificity as to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
“Rather, this claim relates to the importance of the occupation of learning specialist in general.”
“Without sufficient detail, we cannot accurately analyze the proposed endeavor to determine if it rises to the level of national importance.”
“she has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her university, her student population, or her potential website customers to impact the field of higher education”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not describe her specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- business plan · discounted
“she has not provided any further details or evidence regarding this website, such as a business plan”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“The Petitioner does not appear to have focused on advising engineering students specifically.”
AAO decision text - other · credited
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
AAO applied the Soriano/Obaigbena framework to decide whether to consider new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal, admitting job postings as directly responsive to the Director's characterization but also considering other new evidence 'as it expands on evidence previously submitted.' AAO also flagged that the newly asserted 'website' endeavor may constitute an impermissible material change to the petition under Matter of Izummi, though it considered it anyway and still found it insufficient.
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
- Matter of Izummi
- Poursina v. USCIS
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