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 education teacher, proposed creating a non-profit foundation to implement a high school 'life skills' program in classrooms nationwide, aimed at helping students with cognitive disabilities.
Field: special education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“the impact of a single teacher in one school would not be national in scope for purposes of waiving the job otTer requirement”
“the Petitioner's subsequent development and dissemination of the proposal cannot retroactively qualify him for that earlier priority date”
“there is no documentary evidence reflecting that any school systems have implemented the proposal or that his t<.mndation has received financial grants”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established
“the Petitioner's past achievements as a special educator did not justify projection that he would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications”
“a petitioner still must demonstrate that he will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than do others in his field”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner's subsequent development and dissemination of the proposal cannot retroactively qualify him for that earlier priority date”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not indicate that ... intends to advance the Petitioner's specific proposal”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the teacher performance evaluation, however, covers a time period after the Form I-140 was filed”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner, however, does not explain how our previous findings under NYSDOT had legal errors or misstatements of fact that would warrant reconsideration”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- U.S. worker availability · p3 — the impracticality of a labour-market test was asserted, not established
Notable
This is a decision on a third, combined motion to reopen/reconsider under the legacy NYSDOT three-prong test; the AAO's prior appellate dismissal is not itself at issue, so outcome is coded 'other' (motions denied) rather than 'dismissed.' NYSDOT's test lacks a clean analog to Dhanasar's prong 2, so p2 is left unanalyzed. The Petitioner's 'unique qualifications not amenable to labor certification' argument was rejected as insufficient standing alone to justify a waiver.
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. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of Otiende
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