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 educator, proposed to develop and disseminate early childhood development strategies using project-based learning, including creating a 'skills development center' for children ages 5-12 and promoting her methods through a website, presentations, and conferences.
Field: early childhood education / project-based learning · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on bachelor's degree plus five years progressive experience; AAO did not disturb this and did not reach it further since appeal was dismissed on other grounds.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“this statement is not specific or detailed enough for us to assess the potential prospect impact of it in the abstract”
“these articles provide background about the project-based learning approach and help establish the importance of early learning, but this relates only to the field of education and not to the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner did not provide evidence to support this claim”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“this relates only to the field of education and not to the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not provide evidence to support this claim”
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
Notable
Petitioner argued the Director mischaracterized her endeavor by conflating it with classroom teaching (distinguishing from the teaching endeavor in Dhanasar itself) and argued that showing potential to employ U.S. workers is illustrative, not required, for national importance; AAO agreed with the legal point but found it did not overcome the overall lack of specificity in the endeavor's national importance. Petitioner also cited a non-binding district court case (Buletini v. INS) regarding failure to consider evidence, which AAO rejected as non-precedential.
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 L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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