dismissedJUL212020_01B52032020-07-21 · appeal · Texas Service Center

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 teacher, sought to continue working in special education/early childhood education in the U.S., developing lesson plans and communication skills for preschoolers including those who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Field: special education / early childhood education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner did not provide a credential evaluation establishing her Brazilian bachelor's degree as equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate, and even if she had, she had not shown five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience at time of filing. She also failed to establish exceptional ability, satisfying only 2 of 6 criteria (academic record and membership) rather than the required 3.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner's evidence is insufficient to show that her proposed work has broader implications for her field, as opposed to being limited to the students at the preschool where she intends to teach”

“this reported shortage does not render the work of an individual teacher nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”

“she has not demonstrated that her undertaking has implications beyond the preschoolers under her tutelage”

“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“the Petitioner did not provide an academic credentials evaluation to establish her diploma's equivalency to a U.S. baccalaureate degree”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“she has not demonstrated at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in her specialty at the time she filed the petition”
AAO decision text
certification membership · credited
recommendation letter · discounted
“they did not offer specific examples of how her work was recognized as significant contributions to the field of education”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the record does not include supporting evidence demonstrating that these papers represent significant contributions to the industry or field”
AAO decision text

All 7 evidence items

other · discounted
“these salary comparisons are not during the same time period”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“a shortage alone does not demonstrate that waiving the requirement of a labor certification would benefit the United States”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
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

2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

AAO explicitly states each of the three bases (advanced degree failure, exceptional ability failure, and NIW prong 1 failure) is an independent and alternate basis for dismissal. The decision also rejects a 'shortage of deaf education teachers' argument by noting labor certification exists to address worker shortages, so a shortage claim cannot substitute for showing national importance.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer