The petitioner, a special needs educator, initially proposed to continue working as a special education teacher at an elementary school; on later motions she instead described creating a digital platform and social media presence to support inclusive education for special needs students and their families.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“she again relies on the purported importance of her field of work as indicative of the national importance of her endeavor to continue her work as a special needs educator”

“the Petitioner has not identified a specific endeavor, but has described in general terms two separate endeavors”

“The Petitioner has not provided a consistent description of a specific proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “provides information similar to the letters previously submitted, including her dedication and her duties as an educator”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “evidence in the record has already been reviewed and thoroughly discussed in previous decisions”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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

Notable

This is the fifth motion to reconsider in the same proceeding, following an appeal, two combined motions to reopen/reconsider, and two further motions to reconsider, all dismissed. A prior motion to reopen was denied because the petitioner substituted a materially different endeavor (creating an online platform/social media advocacy effort) for her original endeavor of continuing as a classroom special needs educator, which the AAO treated as an impermissible material change rather than new facts. Prongs two and three were never reached, consistent with agencies not being required to make advisory findings on unnecessary issues.

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. 103.5
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Coelho
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• Matter of O-S-G-

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