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 IT instructor and adjunct college lecturer, proposed to continue teaching IT and STEM curricula to close the IT-skills gap and STEM education disparity among economically depressed and underrepresented minority groups.
Field: information technology / STEM education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director and AAO agreed the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on his U.S. master's degree in computer science.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner has not demonstrated that, under his specific endeavor, he would educate and train enough people to have national implications in the IT, STEM education, or workforce development fields.”
“when considering national importance, we must focus on the particular proposed endeavor”
“The Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently differentiated his proposed venture from the STEM-teaching proposal in Dhanasar.”
“The Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor has national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- awards · discounted
“The Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently differentiated his proposed venture from the STEM-teaching proposal in Dhanasar.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- other · discounted
“when considering national importance, we must focus on the particular proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · ignored
“we cannot consider the 2022 recognition or his website”
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
Notable
The Petitioner argued that federal policies favoring educational and economic equity for minorities and immigrants (citing executive orders) supported national importance; the AAO rejected this as improperly conflating field/policy importance with the specific endeavor's impact, closely analogizing the case to Matter of Dhanasar itself. The AAO also excluded post-filing evidence (2022 award, personal website) under the 'time of filing' eligibility rule.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an assistant professor of Arabic, proposed to continue teaching Levantine-Modern Standard Arabic to U.S.
- The Petitioner, a secondary school teacher, proposed to develop and implement an open educational resource program to ex
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a consulting company in Missouri to design and implement a nationally adaptable tea
- The Petitioner, an arts, drama, and music teacher and entrepreneur, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of excep
- The petitioner, a mathematics teacher with 17 years of experience, proposed to operate a company offering online math tu