dismissedNOV142022_01B52032022-11-14 · appeal · Texas 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, chief academic officer and owner of a Florida-based online education company, proposed to advise on curriculum, instruction, and digital content delivery through his company's proprietary learning management system, while also holding related roles as a university faculty member and conference organizer.

Field: online education / digital learning · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director and AAO found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently identified a specific proposed endeavor.”

“the lack of specificity impedes a conclusion that his proposed endeavor has national importance.”

“the Petitioner cannot simply infer the prospective national importance of the proposed endeavor from the field of endeavor.”

“it does not appear as though the Petitioner provides these services to the public or educational institutions at large.”

“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”

“the growth potential for the company did not demonstrate that the benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy... would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“the growth potential for the company did not demonstrate that the benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's business would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the Petitioner cannot simply infer the prospective national importance of the proposed endeavor from the field of endeavor.”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“the Petitioner has not provided independent and objective evidence of increased property sales in Florida attributable to his work”
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
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

1,312coded 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 found the Petitioner had not even identified a single specific proposed endeavor, describing multiple overlapping roles (CAO of his company, university faculty, conference organizer, Brazilian business owner, and a prospective new CAO position with a not-yet-established U.S. university). The new job offer post-dated the petition filing and was rejected under the Michelin Tire/Izummi rule against material changes after filing. AAO also noted some support letters described post-filing events, which could not establish eligibility as of the filing date.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
Matter of Izummi
Matter of L-A-C-
Matter of V-K-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer