dismissedNOV282023_06B52032023-11-28 · appeal · 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, a language teacher with experience as a tutor and au pair, proposed to start a school teaching Russian and German (and English) to Americans through online and in-person instruction, including immersive travel-based methods.
Field: foreign language teaching · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor has national importance and thus, she did not meet the national importance requirement of the first prong”
“the letter does not provide details about the broader national impact of the Petitioner's achievements”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
“The projections of the Petitioner's company's revenue and job creation as stated in the business plan are also unsupported in the record.”
“she has not sufficiently explained and documented how her work operating a language school from her residence would produce an impact rising to the level of national importance”
“neither ... specifically describes or discusses the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor in private language instruction”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“she has not supported these assertions with sufficient independent, objective evidence”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“beyond these general statements, neither...specifically describes or discusses the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner relies upon the evidence she previously submitted...does not provide new evidence”
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
Business plan and business registration documents were dated after the petition's filing date, implicating Matter of Katigbak's rule that eligibility must be established as of filing. Expert letters that addressed 'well-positioned' qualities were noted as misdirected to prong 2 rather than prong 1's national importance inquiry.
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)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers