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, sought to open a special education support office providing psychopedagogical support, consultancy on adapting materials for special education, and lectures on education for children with special needs.
Field: special education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the evidence did not show the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond her immediate students and customers to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative of national importance”
“the determination of national importance does not focus on the importance ofthe field in general, but "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“While the support letters discuss the Petitioner's successful work, they do not address her proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“On motion to reopen, the Petitioner does not assert any new facts and does not submit any new evidence.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“This evidence attests to the Petitioner's significant achievements in her field but is more relevant to the second Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO found the petitioner's motion to reopen failed because no new facts/evidence were submitted, and the motion to reconsider failed because the petitioner mischaracterized the prior decision's content (which had already addressed the letter, RFE response, and full scope of the proposed endeavor). Resubmitted speaker/participation evidence and letters were redirected to prong 2 relevance rather than prong 1.
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. 103.5
- Matter of Coelho
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show her specific proposed endeavor (not the field generally) had impact extending beyond her immediate students/customers to a national scale; evidence submitted addressed personal achievement, not endeavor impact.
Tie evidence directly to the specific endeavor's broader, quantifiable societal/economic reach, not just the field's general importance or the petitioner's credentials.
moderate
public_health · government_interest · field_advancement
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