dismissedNOV042024_03B52032024-11-04 · combined · Nebraska 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, an education administrator, proposed an endeavor related to her field of education administration, described in a professional plan submitted with her petition and subsequent motions.

Field: education administration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“her updated proposed plan discusses the importance of the industry or profession in which the Petitioner will work, which we previously noted is not determinative of the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

“neither plan evidences how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation”

“the record does not demonstrate the benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from her services or position would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects,"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“her updated proposed plan discusses the importance of the industry or profession in which the Petitioner will work”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“neither plan evidences how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's achievements are relevant to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“the evidence submitted largely repeated what was already included in the record”
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

2,589coded 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

This is a second round of combined motions following a prior appeal dismissal and a first combined motion dismissal; AAO's review was expressly limited to reviewing only its latest (first motion) decision, not the original appeal, per 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii). The Petitioner's achievements/experience evidence was explicitly categorized as relevant only to prong 2, which was never reached because prong 1 was dispositive.

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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
Matter of Coelho

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer