dismissedAUG102016_01B52032016-08-10 · appeal · Texas 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 public school teacher and doctoral student, sought to develop and expand novel teaching and assessment methods for children with autism spectrum disorder, aiming to improve verbal, cognitive, and behavioral skills through educational program development and research.
Field: autism education / special education research · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree (M.S. in education); not contested on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“The submitted documentation shows that the Petitioner's work as a teacher, program developer, and educational research scholar is in an area of substantial intrinsic merit.”
“the record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner meets the first prong of the NYSDOT national interest analysis.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“The Petitioner has demonstrated that the proposed benefit of her autism education research and program development has national scope, as the results from her work are disseminated to others in the field through conferences and journals.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established · dispositive
“although education is in the national interest, the impact of a single schoolteacher in one school would not be in the national interest for purposes of waiving the job offer requirement.”
“there is no evidence showing that once disseminated through publication or presentation, the Petitioner's work has garnered a significant number of independent citations or that her findings have otherwise influenced the field as a whole.”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in the field have little probative value.”
“the record does not establish that the Petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole or that she will otherwise serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications.”
“there is no documentary evidence showing that the Petitioner's program or any of her other teaching initiatives were implemented beyond her school district such that they had a national effect or otherwise affected the field as a whole.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in the field have little probative value.”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“there is no presumption that every published article or conference presentation demonstrates influence on the field as a whole”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“All of the Petitioner's research findings contained in the record were published or presented after the filing date of the Form I-140 on August 1, 2013.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“The Petitioner does not explain how her participation in the aforementioned advisory committees has influenced the field as a whole.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“there is no indication that she was the original developer of the partnerships (rather than just a program participant) and that her involvement produced national benefits”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“None of the documents presented on appeal demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing and that her work has affected the field as a whole.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p3 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- Letters conclusory · p3 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p3 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Record of success insufficient · p3 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
- U.S. worker availability · p3 — the impracticality of a labour-market test was asserted, not established
249coded 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
Decision applies the legacy NYSDOT three-prong framework (pre-Dhanasar). Unusually, the AAO found prongs 1 and 2 (substantial intrinsic merit and national scope) satisfied, failing only on prong 3 (serving national interest to a greater degree than a U.S. worker). A significant portion of the denial rests on the filing-date rule: virtually all of the Petitioner's publications, conference presentations, and organizational activities post-dated the August 1, 2013 filing date and were therefore excluded from eligibility consideration. The Petitioner initially filed the I-140 with no supporting documentation.
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