dismissedDEC072023_02B52032023-12-07 · 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 proposed to continue working as a physical education/basketball coach for youth sports organizations and schools, labeling the occupation 'athletic trainer,' though the RFE response later shifted to a plan to found a chain of sports schools as CEO and athletic trainer.

Field: physical education / youth sports coaching · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO agreed the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a bachelor's-equivalent degree plus five years of progressive experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner's description of his proposed endeavor does not align with the job duties and responsibilities of an athletic trainer as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor.”

“The Petitioner does not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor extends beyond his future students and employers to impact the field or any other industries or the health of U.S. children more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the importance of the physical education and the youth sports fields, rather than the national importance of a specific proposed endeavor.”

“The Petitioner's claims that his proposed endeavor will impact obesity in children and benefit U.S. healthcare ... has not been established through independent and objective evidence.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · credited
recommendation letter · discounted
“Simply stating that his work would be in an area of importance for the health of U.S. children is not sufficient to meet the "national importance" requirement”
AAO decision text
business plan · ignored
“The Petitioner's plan to establish a new business of sports schools will not be considered in this decision”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“the reports and articles demonstrate the fields of physical education and youth sports coaching are important, they do not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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
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

The AAO refused to consider a materially different, later-proposed entrepreneurial endeavor (founding a chain of sports schools as CEO) submitted only in response to the RFE, invoking Matter of Izummi's bar on material changes after filing, and limited its analysis to the originally stated coaching endeavor; it also found a mismatch between the claimed 'athletic trainer' occupational classification/SOC code and the actual coaching duties described.

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. 103.2(b)(8)
8 C.F.R. 103.3
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of E-M-
Matter of Izummi
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer