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 proposed to work as an inclusive special education teacher in a U.S. public elementary school, providing special education services in the classroom and assisting other educators with inclusive teaching methods and strategies.
Field: special education teaching · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew Director's finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; her licentiate degree was not shown equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree and the claimed '3-for-1 Rule' converting experience into education equivalency was unsupported by any regulation or source. Exceptional ability claim was not pursued on appeal and was reserved.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the potential prospective impact ofher specific endeavor would impact the special needs and bilingual education industries more broadly, with national or global implications.”
“a shortage of workers in a particular occupation or skill does not render the Petitioner's proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”
“the Petitioner has not established that adding to the racial diversity of the teaching staff at her own school would have implications beyond her students and colleagues.”
“we focus, not on the specific area or field at issue, but the specific endeavor a petitioner proposes to undertake.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated her 2005 licentiate degree is equivalent to a bachelor's degree.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the evaluation does not reference a statute, regulation, or other source for the "3-for-l Rule"”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's assertions regarding her background and experience relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO withdrew the Director's favorable threshold EB-2 finding sua sponte, rejecting an academic evaluation's invented 'three years of experience equals one year of education' equivalency rule as unsupported by any regulatory source; ultimately reserved the threshold issue because national importance was independently dispositive.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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