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 proposed to open and serve as CEO of a basketball academy in New York (with planned expansion to Illinois and Florida) offering basketball training programs, lessons, and summer camps for youth.
Field: physical education / basketball coaching · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO agreed, that Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“rather than benefiting his own basketball academy and its students, trainees, players, or athletes”
“Therefore, a shortage of qualified professionals alone is not sufficient to demonstrate eligibility for the national interest waiver”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this revenue stands to substantially affect economic activity regionally or nationally”
“the business plan does not adequately explain how this revenue and staffing targets will be realized”
“the relevant question is not the importance of physical education or physical education professionals”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“lack of supporting details detracts from the credibility and probative value of the business plan”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not directly address the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposed to undertake”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO relied heavily on distinguishing the general importance of the physical-education field from the petitioner's specific endeavor, echoing Dhanasar's own facts (teaching activities not nationally important). It also rejected an expert letter's NBA-industry revenue statistics as not tied to petitioner's specific basketball academy, and rejected a labor-shortage/BLS-growth-projection argument as belonging to the labor-certification process rather than NIW 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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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