NIW Bearings
dismissedAUG112021_03B52032021-08-11 · 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, a taekwondo athlete and coach, intended to continue competing and coaching in the U.S., including working as an instructor for a martial arts team/club.

Field: taekwondo (athletics/coaching) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner failed to establish at least three of the six exceptional ability criteria; only the license criterion was conceded by the Director, and the appeal did not adequately challenge the denial of the other criteria or submit supporting evidence/argument.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond c:=J to impact the sport of taekwondo more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“he has not demonstrated that his involvement as a competitor stands to impact USA Taekwondo, the U.S . national team, or his sport at a level consistent with having national importance.”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S . economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner' s competing and coaching would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “does not explain his reason for changing the date of the Petitioner's initial employment”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “does not address or resolve these discrepancies with independent, objective evidence”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · ignored
    “does not identify the evidence”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the appellate submission, however, was unaccompanied by additional evidence relating to his taekwondo achievements”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • 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
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

Decision explicitly frames both the exceptional-ability denial and the prong-1 national-importance failure as independent and alternate bases for dismissal. Heavy OCR redaction/artifacts obscure employer/coach names throughout.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • INA 291
  • Matter of Ho
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer