dismissedMAY072025_05B52032025-05-07 · 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 sought to continue working as a science and chemistry teacher in Florida, aiming to promote STEMM education and train future U.S. STEMM experts.

Field: science and chemistry education / STEMM education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

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

“the national shortage of teachers is not, in and of itself: sufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor”

“they do not offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of her proposed endeavor or establish how such impact would extend beyond her students and employer”

“there is no evidence that any of these letters were written on behalf of a governmental or even quasi-governmental agency”

“These are broad and general issues, well beyond the scope of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to work as a science and chemistry teacher at a magnet school in Florida”

“The Petitioner has not shown that her endeavor aims to advance STEM technologies and research or has broad implications rather than providing her limited professional services”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of her proposed endeavor or establish how such impact would extend beyond her students and employer”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“The authors of the letters do not explain how the Petitioner's employment as a science and chemistry teacher would alleviate the STEM teacher shortage”
AAO decision text
degree · ignored
“she did not provide the respective academic transcripts as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)”
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
Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

1,581coded 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 expressly declined to address whether letters from colleagues at a government-run school could count as quasi-governmental support, finding no evidence the letters were written on behalf of the agency itself; also declined to resolve underlying EB-2 eligibility due to missing transcripts since NIW prong 1 was dispositive.

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
Matter of E-M-
Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner conflated importance of the STEM field/teacher shortage generally with national importance of her specific endeavor; letters showed no broader field-wide impact beyond her classroom and employer.

Transferable lesson

For teaching/service endeavors, show concrete broader-than-local impact (curriculum, methodology, policy, or field-wide reach), not just field importance or personal excellence.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

stem_positive_factor · field_advancement · geographic_or_shortage_area · government_interest

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer