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 an endeavor centered on teaching, though she later sought to clarify that it also encompassed other unspecified aspects beyond classroom instruction.
Field: special education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on motion.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not meet the first prong of the analytical framework in Matter of Dhanasar”
“We concluded the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor.”
“she seeks to clarify the scope of her proposed endeavor by providing additional and new evidence.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“our prior decision stated that this evidence was reviewed and considered.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner was put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to provide evidence ... we will not consider it for the first time on appeal.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
This is a second combined motion to reopen/reconsider following a prior AAO dismissal of the appeal and an earlier combined motion; the AAO declined to consider new evidence (expert letters, statistical data) as untimely under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(11)/(b)(1), and characterized the Petitioner's arguments as mere reargument under Matter of O-S-G-, ultimately reaffirming the original prong-one national importance failure without conducting fresh substantive analysis.
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)(1)(i)
- 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)
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of O-S-G-
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