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 work as a fitness director for her own company in Florida, providing consultation to coaches, trainers, and athletes on high-performance athletic training and to clients seeking science-based health and fitness improvement.
Field: fitness industry / physiotherapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The AAO reserved a final determination but flagged, in a footnote, that the Petitioner's Brazilian Titulo de Bacharel and accompanying academic evaluation contained unresolved discrepancies regarding program length and dates, undermining the claim of a foreign equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Similarly, the record here does not establish that the Petitioner's job as a fitness director would impact the industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to her clients.”
“they lack specificity and detail and are not supported by independent, objective evidence to establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance”
“the Petitioner contends that the Director erred in finding that the record does not establish that her proposed endeavor will have broader implications in her field, substantial economic benefits, significantly impact employment levels, or have national or global implications”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they lack specificity and detail and are not supported by independent, objective evidence”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“does not address or explain the discrepancy with the dates from the provided transcript”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“She does not, however, provide new evidence or arguments which overcome the Director's determination.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The decision includes a lengthy footnote reserving eligibility on the threshold advanced-degree issue due to an unresolved discrepancy between the Petitioner's Brazilian Titulo de Bacharel transcript (2006-2008) and an academic evaluation claiming a four-year program ending in 2010, citing AACRAO EDGE as a reliable equivalency source; the AAO instructs the Petitioner to address this in any future filing despite not resolving it in this decision.
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
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