dismissedAUG232021_03B52032021-08-23 · 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 weightlifter and coach, initially claimed he would continue working in his field of expertise, then in RFE response proposed operating an exercise/training business for older adults, and on appeal shifted to claiming he would coach and train U.S. weightlifting athletes.
Field: weightlifting / exercise science · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“At initial filing, the Petitioner did not provide a specific proposed endeavor in accordance with the Dhanasar precedent decision.”
“we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work”
“the Petitioner did not show that such services stand to sufficiently extend beyond his potential or futuristic clients”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · ignored
“we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of operating a weightlifting or exercise business for older adults.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's experience, skills, and abilities in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
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
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 withdrew the Director's favorable finding on substantial merit despite the Director having sided with Petitioner on that point; also invoked the 'materially changed facts' doctrine (Izummi/Bardouille) to refuse considering the RFE-stage business plan and appeal-stage coaching claims as they postdated the filing date.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Izummi
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a musician and music educator, proposed to advance music education in the United States by opening a pia
- The petitioner, a tattoo artist, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability along with a nationa
- The Petitioner, an MMA athlete and trainer, proposed to operate a jiu jitsu company through which he would train and com
- The Petitioner sought to establish an arts education academy in Ohio, with plans to expand to New York and Michigan, off
- The Petitioner, an art curator, proposed to establish a nonprofit cultural center/platform focused on exhibitions, oral