NIW Bearings
dismissedDEC152023_01B52032023-12-15 · 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, an educational consultant with a background in early childhood education, proposed to work in the U.S. as a consultant developing and advancing early intervention educational research and services for young children (ages 0-7) with special needs, particularly targeting low-income communities.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualified as advanced degree professional; not contested on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner did not offer specific information and evidence to corroborate her assertions that the prospective impact of working as an educational consultant rises to the level of national importance.”
“The Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance ofher specific, proposed endeavor of providing early intervention educational services through her specific endeavor rather than the importance of special education or the education industry or field.”
“However, she has not established how her individual special education teaching activities will resolve this shortage or impact it on a level rising to national importance.”
“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to her future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the support letters and the rest of the record do not document any impact the Petitioner has had or will have on the broader field”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “she has not established how her individual special education teaching activities will resolve this shortage or impact it on a level rising to national importance”
    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
  • 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 reserved opinion on prong 3 despite Petitioner's arguments, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach unnecessary issues. Footnote clarifies that occupational shortage is addressed via labor certification process, not NIW national importance analysis.

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. 103.3
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer