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 former professional soccer player and administrative manager in Brazil, proposed to establish a soccer development business in Georgia where he would serve as head coach, offering training and coaching services to children, athletes, and teams.
Field: soccer coaching / soccer development business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew the Director's finding of EB-2 eligibility and held the Petitioner did not meet at least three of six exceptional-ability criteria: his high school transcript was unrelated to soccer coaching, the union statement was not from a former employer and related to playing rather than coaching experience, the 'certificate of football monitor' and coach ID card were not shown to be licenses/certifications, the accountant's revenue statement did not show salary demonstrating exceptional ability, the ICA membership was not shown to be a qualifying professional association, and his recognitions related to his soccer-playing career rather than his coaching occupation.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed work to provide soccer instruction and development classes to soccer players would impact the soccer industry more broadly.”
“the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support his claims that his business' activities stand to provide substantial economic, health, and societal welfare benefits”
“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized.”
“merely working in the soccer coaching field or starting a soccer development business is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
“rather than benefiting his business and his proposed clients, the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that his proposed endeavor is of national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“his high school transcript does not show that his high school degree is related to his area of exceptional ability, soccer coaching.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the statement does not appear to be from the Petitioner's former employer(s)... and does not demonstrate that he has at least ten years of full-time experience in his intended occupation as a soccer coach”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record does not include evidence explaining the significance of either document, nor does it indicate that either serves as a license or certification”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the accountant's statement does not indicate that the Petitioner earned a salary or renumeration for his exceptional ability as a soccer coach.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner's claims and recommendation letters relate to the impact of his work as a soccer player, instead of his proposed endeavor as a soccer coach.”
AAO decision text
All 8 evidence items
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized.”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the opinion's focus on the benefits of sports and physical activity does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific endeavor may have a prospective impact in his field.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
Notable
AAO withdrew the Director's favorable finding on underlying EB-2 classification sua sponte on de novo review, finding the Petitioner (claiming exceptional ability as a soccer coach) failed to meet three of six regulatory criteria despite the Director having found five of six met at the RFE stage; AAO also rejected the Petitioner's argument that his soccer-playing fame (compared to Messi and Beckham) established national importance of his separate coaching endeavor, distinguishing prong 1 (endeavor) from prong 2 (personal qualifications).
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Flores v. Garland
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
- Visinscaia v. Beers
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers