dismissedOCT242023_09B52032023-10-24 · motion_reopen · 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, an English language arts teacher at a correctional facility, proposed to continue teaching while developing an educational research model/platform, later tied to doctoral study and an I-Corps technology-transfer program.
Field: English language arts education / educational technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record lack supporting documentation demonstrating that these issues are of national concern or importance, and the Petitioner provides only vague assertions”
“she mentions a potential "significant economic impact in the near future" but provides no specific data or other evidence to support this claim”
“the Petitioner has not shown that this availability by itself would lead to potential implications at the national or even global level in the education field”
“execution of the demonstration project, is subject to funding which has yet to be secured”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition."”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“execution of the demonstration project, is subject to funding which has yet to be secured”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“eligibility must be established at the time of filing”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the next phase, execution of the demonstration project, is subject to funding which has yet to be secured”
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
- 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
The decision devotes substantial analysis to excusing an untimely motion filing (found reasonable and beyond Petitioner's control) before reaching the merits, where the AAO applied the time-of-filing rule (Katigbak/Izummi/Bardouille) to reject new post-filing evidence of PhD enrollment and I-Corps participation as irrelevant to eligibility at filing.
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. 103.2(b)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
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