dismissedAPR292024_04B52032024-04-29 · combined · Nebraska 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, a special education teacher, proposed to continue developing and implementing an inclusive teaching model/tools for special-needs students that she claimed was scalable to programs nationwide.

Field: special education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“she has not illustrated the "potential prospective impact" of her actual proposed work, or how it will impact the special education field more broadly”

“The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's teaching methods would impact the special education field more broadly.”

“she repeatedly moves from discussing the great work the Petitioner is performing in her community, then abruptly transitions to her work effecting the field on a national scale without providing an explanation or connection for that determination”

“those letters convey the national importance of her proposed endeavor because they highlight her qualifications, responsibilities, and role in addressing a nationwide shortage of special needs educators”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“placing too heavy focus on the special needs education field and too little on how her proposed endeavor would have broader implications within that field”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute "new facts."”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“simply disagreeing with our determination and stating that they demonstrate the national importance ... falls short of serving as a proper basis for a motion to reconsider”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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

This is a combined motion to reopen/reconsider following a prior appeal dismissal limited to prong 1 (national importance); the AAO's analysis focuses heavily on motion procedural standards (new facts vs. reasserted facts, proper grounds for reconsideration) alongside the substantive national-importance shortfall, repeatedly faulting letters and articles for failing to explain 'the how' connecting local impact to field-wide significance.

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(a)(1)(ii)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
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.

Decisive factor

Petitioner's new statement and colleague letter again showed only local/classroom-level benefits and asserted national scalability without evidentiary connection, failing Dhanasar's national-importance prong; motion to reconsider offered no legal error, only disagreement.

Transferable lesson

To satisfy prong 1, tie evidence explicitly to how the specific endeavor—not just the person's skill—will measurably affect the field or nation beyond the immediate workplace.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

field_advancement · geographic_or_shortage_area

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer