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 university journalism professor, proposed a two-phase endeavor: first providing communication/media strategy consulting to businesses, then using proceeds to create an Audiovisual Training Center in Texas to train Hispanic students in radio journalism, production, and entrepreneurship.
Field: radio journalism / audiovisual training and communications · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found and AAO did not disturb that Petitioner qualifies as advanced degree professional; AAO used EDGE database to confirm foreign master's degree equivalency despite missing formal equivalency evaluation.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her trainers, teachers, students or trainees to impact the field of radio journalism more broadly”
“The Petitioner does not explain the relevance of these printouts to her proposed endeavor.”
“she has not shown that her training activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits in the United States”
“this data is not specific to the geographic area of her proposed endeavor, nor does it clearly correlate to the specific field of training”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“The Petitioner does not explain the relevance of these printouts to her proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“we cannot determine the relevance of these exhibits to the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
- degree · credited
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO withdrew the Director's substantial-merit finding but affirmed on national importance alone; also independently verified the foreign degree equivalency via EDGE database despite Petitioner's failure to submit a formal equivalency evaluation, while cautioning she must cure this deficiency in future filings. Untranslated Spanish-language exhibits and data postdating the filing date were also discounted.
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)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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