dismissedDEC062024_02B52032024-12-06 · appeal · Texas 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 sought to serve as CEO of his own company providing sports performance-enhancement programs, coaching development, and athlete training services, including research and development and corporate wellness offerings.
Field: sports training / athletic performance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he has not explained or provided evidence to show how his company would impact these broad national initiatives on broader level, beyond the immediate benefit to his prospective clients.”
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these employment projections.”
“the business plan also does not explain the basis for the financial projections.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work”
“they primarily relate to the benefits to the Petitioner's prospective clients instead of the broader industry.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these employment projections.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they primarily focus on the Petitioner's past experience without addressing the prospective impact of his endeavor.”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the business plan also does not explain the basis for the financial projections.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“they do not establish its national importance.”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,312coded 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 noted the Petitioner's appeal largely restated arguments already addressed by the Director without identifying specific errors, and expressly reserved the threshold EB-2 classification issue and Dhanasar prongs two and three as unnecessary given the dispositive first-prong failure.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
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