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 special needs/special education teacher, initially proposed to continue working as a special education teacher in the U.S.; on her fourth motion she introduced a new proposed endeavor to develop a digital platform offering resources, workshops, and podcasts for educators, parents, and students to promote inclusive special-needs education.
Field: special needs education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Here, the Petitioner has not identified a specific and consistent proposed endeavor and therefore, has not established new facts overcoming our prior determinations and establishing eligibility.”
“The newly submitted industry articles and industry reports all generally discuss special education and teacher shortages and do not specifically speak to the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
“we correctly concluded the Petitioner did not demonstrate her proposed endeavor is of national importance under Dhanasar's first prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“do not specifically speak to the Petitioner's specific endeavor she proposes to undertake”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“she makes similar arguments to those previously presented on prior motions”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“evidence in the record has already been reviewed and thoroughly discussed in previous decisions”
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
This is the AAO's fourth motion decision on this petition (second motion to reopen combined with fourth motion to reconsider), following an appeal dismissal and three prior motion dismissals. The Petitioner introduced an entirely new proposed endeavor (a digital platform) on this final motion, which the AAO rejected as an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi/Katigbak rather than new facts. The AAO explicitly reserved review of prongs 2 and 3 throughout, citing INS v. Bagamasbad.
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)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of O-S-G-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner never settled on one specific, consistent proposed endeavor (job, then IEP work, then a new unbuilt digital platform), which is an impermissible material change on motion, and remaining evidence was generic to the field rather than tied to that endeavor's national-level impact.
Lock in one specific, concrete endeavor at filing and keep it consistent through all motions; support it with evidence tied directly to that endeavor's national-scale impact, not generic field statistics.
vague
field_advancement · economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · geographic_or_shortage_area
person_focused
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