dismissedOCT312023_02B52032023-10-31 · 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 STEM high school teacher, initially proposed to continue working as a STEM teacher and share his knowledge and expertise; he later asserted for the first time on RFE that he intended to open and operate his own STEM-based educational center.

Field: STEM education (high school teaching) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not show through supporting documentation how his particular teaching services sufficiently extend beyond his prospective students”

“the Petitioner did not show that his initial proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”

“we determined the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · ignored
“we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of opening, owning, and operating his own educational center”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“The Petitioner's arguments and evidence relate to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than the national importance part.”
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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

2,501coded 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 applied the 'material change of facts' doctrine (Izummi/Bardouille) to disregard the petitioner's shift from being a STEM teacher to opening his own educational center, evaluating only the originally proposed endeavor. Also cites USCIS Policy Manual language that classroom teaching activities alone generally do not establish national importance.

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 Bardouille
Matter of Izummi
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show his STEM teaching endeavor had impacts beyond his own students/school, and could not rely on a later-asserted educational-center endeavor not present at filing.

Transferable lesson

Define the endeavor concretely at filing and support it with evidence of broader field-wide or economic impact, not just personal credentials or general field importance.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

stem_positive_factor · field_advancement · economic_job_creation

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer