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, proposed to continue teaching students with severe and profound disabilities at a Maryland school, including coordinating specialized work centers for students with autism.
Field: special education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree based on her foreign master's degree equivalency.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not demonstrate that her special education activities offer benefits that extend beyond her school or district to impact the field of special education more broadly”
“The existence of federal statutes (such as the NCLBA) and other U.S. government programs relating to educational reform does not render the work of an individual teacher nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”
“The value of qualified teachers to U.S. national educational initiatives is collective rather than specific to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the record does not demonstrate that her proposed work will affect instructional practices, curricula, or teaching guidelines in field of special education more broadly”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- other · discounted
“does not render the work of an individual teacher nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- certification membership · credited
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
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
Notable
AAO found prong 2 satisfied but prong 1 dispositive against the petitioner, illustrating cross-prong analysis; footnote 5 explicitly notes that even if prong 1 had been met, the same evidentiary gap (lack of broader field impact) would undermine a prong 2 finding for that broader endeavor, showing the interconnection AAO draws between prongs. Also addressed and rejected an employer-debarment argument under prong 3 in a footnote despite not formally reaching prong 3.
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.
- INA 203(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