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, an elementary school special education teacher, sought a national interest waiver to continue working as a teacher in the United States.
Field: elementary special education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“the [P]etitioner has not shown that the proposed benefits of her work are national in scope”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established · dispositive
“the [P]etitioner has not established that her past record of achievement is at a level that would justify a waiver of the job offer requirement”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner's motion did not include any new facts or other documentary evidence to overcome the grounds underlying our previous findings”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“none of the new materials confirm the Petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“humanitarian concerns cannot establish eligibility for this employment-based immigration benefit”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Local, not national scope · p1 — 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
Notable
Multi-round motion history (appeal, then several motions to reopen/reconsider spanning 2013-2016). Petitioner repeatedly raised humanitarian/personal circumstances (wanting to stay 1-2 years to pay debts) rather than address AAO's substantive findings; AAO reiterated it cannot consider post-filing evidence under Izummi/Bardouille/Katigbak. Applies pre-Dhanasar NYSDOT framework.
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. 103.2(b)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of Otiende
- Section 291 of the Act
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