dismissedJAN072026_04B52032026-01-07 · appeal · SCOPS 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 secondary school teacher, proposed to develop and implement an open educational resource program to expand access to advanced STEM coursework in underserved schools, modeled on programs like the University of Texas at Austin's OnRamps Physics.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS and AAO both accepted that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; threshold EB-2 was not at issue on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the evidence in the record does not sufficiently describe how the Petitioner's specific endeavor...has national, or even global, impact to its field or other broader implications rising to a level of national importance”

“the Petitioner's evidence does not preponderantly demonstrate that implementation of [the program] and its potential benefits...would extend beyond the immediate sphere of the schools or entities participating”

“the mere 'alignment with Federal Strategic Priorities' is not sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

“the relevant question...is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”

“like the impact from teaching, the Petitioner's impact from her proposed endeavor only benefits a small subset, namely the participating schools and students”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

resume experience · credited
recommendation letter · discounted
certification membership · discounted
business plan · discounted
“it is not sufficiently evident from the evidence in the record how the realization of these aspirational benefits...would nationally, or even globally, impact the field”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“even if implemented in a number of schools irrespective of geography, it is not apparent from the evidence in the record how the realization of the potential benefits...would have national or even global impact”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
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

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

The AAO took the unusual step of noting that the Biden Administration executive orders and STEM equity initiatives cited by the Petitioner had been revoked by President Trump on January 20, 2025, before the petition was filed on January 27, 2025, rendering those policy alignments moot. The decision also explicitly invokes Dhanasar's own teaching example (at 893) to analogize and reject the petitioner's endeavor. The program name was redacted throughout via (b)(6) marks.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Panel found the endeavor's benefits, even if realized, were confined to participating schools/students, not shown to extend nationally or globally, failing prong 1's national importance requirement.

Transferable lesson

Quantify how program outcomes propagate beyond direct participants to a national or field-wide scale, not just alignment with policy priorities or internal metrics.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

stem_positive_factor · government_interest · field_advancement · economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer