This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the motion to reconsider, finding the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the prior decision misapplied law or policy. The Petitioner could not establish national importance of the proposed coding academy under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur with prior experience running a STEM coding academy in Mexico, sought an EB-2 National Interest Waiver to open a Computer Science Coding Academy in Texas. SCOPS denied the petition on national interest grounds, and the AAO dismissed the subsequent appeal. On this motion to reconsider, the AAO again found the Petitioner failed to establish the national importance prong of Dhanasar, as his business plan and supporting letters were too generalized and lacked independent expert or government corroboration of the academy's broader impact. The motion was dismissed because the Petitioner could not show the AAO misapplied law or policy in its prior decision, and the case did not proceed to analysis of the second or third Dhanasar prongs.
What failed: The Petitioner's business plan projected only a small-scale academy with a handful of staff and modest enrollment numbers, insufficient to demonstrate national importance. Supporting letters and STEM articles were generic and conclusory, lacking specific details about the impact of the Petitioner's unique methodology. Evidence of past success in Mexico and the Petitioner's personal qualifications was found relevant only to whether he was well-positioned (second prong), not to national importance (first prong).
Takeaway: NIW petitioners in STEM education must provide concrete, independent, and objective evidence—such as expert letters from senior government or industry figures describing the specific national impact of their endeavor—rather than relying on general articles about STEM importance or self-authored business plans. Distinguishing the national importance of the proposed endeavor from one's personal qualifications is critical to satisfying Dhanasar's first prong.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-2-NIW criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The Petitioner's business plan projected only a small-scale academy with a handful of staff and modest enrollment numbers, insufficient to demonstrate national importance
- Supporting letters and STEM articles were generic and conclusory, lacking specific details about the impact of the Petitioner's unique methodology
- Evidence of past success in Mexico and the Petitioner's personal qualifications was found relevant only to whether he was well-positioned (second prong), not to national importance (first prong).
Completed
I-140 filed
Entrepreneur planning to establish a STEM/computer science coding academy in Texas
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-05-04
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the motion to reconsider, finding the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the prior decision misapplied law or policy. The Petitioner could not establish national importance of the proposed coding academy under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.