dismissedSEP252023_01B52032023-09-25 · appeal · 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, a teacher, proposed to work as an educator, consultant, and lecturer teaching minorities and underserved communities, promoting environmental conservation, climate-change awareness, and cultural exchange through innovative teaching methods.

Field: education / environmental science and conservation teaching · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director found the Petitioner did not qualify as an advanced degree professional or individual of exceptional ability, but the AAO withdrew that finding, concluding by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner established eligibility as the equivalent of an advanced degree professional.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not suggested that his endeavor as a teacher would meaningfully reduce the teacher shortage”

“an occupational shortage does not necessarily establish that the proposed endeavor stands to impact the broader field”

“the importance of these fields, and of education and teaching in general, is not necessarily sufficient to establish the national importance”

“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”

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
“there is little explanation of any innovative solutions the Petitioner developed”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“the evidence does not mention the Petitioner or credit him with the work required to produce these materials”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the opinion letter is of limited probative value, as it contains little analysis of the specific proposed endeavor or its impact”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

1,619coded 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 AAO withdrew the Director's threshold EB-2 denial (finding the Petitioner equivalent to an advanced degree professional) but still dismissed the appeal solely on Dhanasar prong 1, declining to reach prongs 2 and 3. The decision includes detailed analysis rejecting claims that obtaining mobile laboratories or using flashcards constituted innovative or field-impacting contributions.

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.

Matter of L-A-C-
Matter of V-K-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer