dismissedOCT022023_03B52032023-10-02 · appeal · Nebraska 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 special education teacher, sought to continue working as a special needs specialist/teacher, helping students with disabilities develop academic, social, and behavioral skills and integrating them into regular classrooms.

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

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The issue here is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“We are not persuaded by the argument that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of professionals in her field.”

“Further, shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process.”

“The Petitioner has not shown that her proposed work as a special education teacher has broader implications for her field, as opposed to being limited to the students at the school where she intends to teach.”

“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not indicate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's teaching activities would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“The record therefore demonstrates that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor aimed at teaching students with special needs has substantial merit.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
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
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 credited substantial merit of the field but found national importance of the specific endeavor lacking; explicitly rejected shortage-based argument as addressed by labor certification process rather than NIW; expert letters on field importance found conflated with endeavor-specific 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.

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

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer