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 lawyer, sought to establish a nonprofit organization promoting child-led environmental advocacy and education, focused on reducing single-use plastics and integrating climate change education into K-12 school curricula.
Field: environmental/climate change education and child advocacy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found, and AAO agreed, that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“Simply working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
“Beyond these vague assertions, however, she has provided little detail regarding how she specifically plans to accomplish such broad objectives through her endeavor”
“this assertion alone does not establish that her future work has a "significant potential to employ U.S. workers"”
“the letters are of little probative value in determining the endeavor's national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters are of little probative value in determining the endeavor's national importance.”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the articles and reports do not mention or discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor specifically”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“she has provided little detail regarding how she specifically plans to accomplish such broad objectives through her endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“she has not specifically explained, much less quantified, how any economic impact resulting from these activities would be substantial enough”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Notable
SCOPS had found the second Dhanasar prong satisfied but the third prong not met; AAO resolved the appeal solely on the first prong as dispositive, declining to reach prongs two and three. A footnote notes SCOPS' decision contained a typographical gender/pronoun error that did not affect the outcome.
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. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers