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 art curator, proposed to establish a nonprofit cultural center/platform focused on exhibitions, oral history collection, digital archiving, publications, and education programming to document and promote Persian-American cultural heritage, with plans to later expand to other immigrant and minority communities.
Field: art curation / cultural heritage preservation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
“the record does not show through supporting documentation how her specific proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective clients, community, or organization to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“The record contains no evidence of projected budgets, financial models, funding commitments, operational plans or analysis estimating economic output”
“opinions and support letters provide little probative evidence of the Petitioner's eligibility under Dhanasar's first prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“General letters praising the Petitioner's skills as a curator, without establishing how her activities will impact the nation or a broader regional population, are not probative for this prong.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“such evidence addresses the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience; these are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Expressions of intent to collaborate do not establish the scale, scope or broader impact of the endeavor.”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
SCOPS had already conceded the Petitioner's exceptional-ability eligibility and that the endeavor had substantial merit; the appeal turned solely on national importance. The AAO expressly declined to reach prongs two and three under Bagamasbad/Matter of L-A-C- reasoning once prong one failed.
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)
- Matter of L-A-C-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
No evidence showed the endeavor's impact would extend beyond the immediate Iranian American community or local programming to a national or regional scale, nor any economic/job data.
Support cultural or nonprofit endeavors with concrete plans, funding commitments, and quantifiable projected impact showing scale beyond the immediate community, not just supportive letters.
moderate
field_advancement · economic_job_creation · other
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a musician and music educator, proposed to advance music education in the United States by opening a pia
- The petitioner, a tattoo artist, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability along with a nationa
- The Petitioner, an MMA athlete and trainer, proposed to operate a jiu jitsu company through which he would train and com
- The Petitioner sought to establish an arts education academy in Ohio, with plans to expand to New York and Michigan, off
- The Petitioner, an avant-garde pop artist working with a creative partner, sought to run her own art business creating p