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 and school administrator in early childhood and special education, sought to continue working in the education field in the United States.
Field: early childhood/special education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO agreed the Petitioner met 3 of 6 exceptional ability criteria but found, in the final merits determination, that the record did not show a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field; this failure was dispositive, so the Dhanasar NIW analysis was never reached.
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters do not identify a significant contribution to the industry or field”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner's training certificate and licensures are common for those working in the industry to enter the field”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“she has not explained how this experience... has provided her with expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
The AAO explicitly declined to reach the Dhanasar national interest waiver analysis, citing INS v. Bagamasbad, because the Petitioner failed to establish threshold eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability; the appeal turned entirely on the threshold EB-2 classification issue, not on any of the three Dhanasar prongs. The AAO also faulted the Petitioner for failing to substantively rebut SCOPS' final merits determination on appeal, deeming several issues waived.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of R-A-M-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to establish EB-2 exceptional-ability classification itself (expertise significantly above field norm); NIW/Dhanasar analysis was never reached because underlying eligibility was dispositive.
Secure underlying EB-2 classification first: address final-merits 'significantly above' standard directly and obtain memberships/recognition before filing, or NIW arguments are never considered.
vague
person_focused
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