The Petitioner, a Brazilian-trained educator, proposed to work as a third-grade elementary school teacher at a school in New Jersey, developing individualized instructional programs for her students.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence based on these recommendation letters to demonstrate the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor will rise to the level of national importance, rather than only impacting her employer and students”

“the Petitioner's emphasis on the occupational shortage of early childhood education teachers "does not render the work of an individual teacher nationally important under the Dhanasar framework."”

“the opinion is not in accord with the record since the Petitioner has not indicated an intention to be a special needs teacher”

“Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the importance of the early childhood education and teaching fields, rather than the national importance of a specific proposed endeavor.”

“The record does not suggest, for example, that the Petitioner's teaching duties would meet the current demand for teachers, address the national teacher and early childhood education shortage”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• resume experience · discounted

  “the letters' veracity is questionable, they bear minimal probative value, and furthermore they cast doubt on the reliability and sufficiency of evidence in the record in general”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “do not address the national importance of her endeavor's "potential prospective impact."”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the opinion is not in accord with the record since the Petitioner has not indicated an intention to be a special needs teacher”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

Where this case turned

• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• 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
• Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO withdrew the Director's favorable threshold finding sua sponte, identifying credibility issues from discrepancies between foreign-language letters and their English translations; the decision explicitly frames both the threshold failure and the prong 1 failure as independent alternate bases for dismissal. An expert opinion was discounted as internally inconsistent with the petitioner's own stated endeavor (mischaracterizing her as a special education teacher).

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
• Matter of Ho
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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