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, an exercise physiologist trained in Brazil, proposed to advance his career in exercise physiology by making his services available to private and public sector clients in the United States, helping them with fitness, weight loss, and blood-pressure/cardiovascular improvement.
Field: exercise physiology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but the AAO reserved opinion on this given evidence that his post-bachelor's experience (as little as six months to four years) fell short of the five years required to equate to an advanced degree, and noted an academic evaluation's equivalency finding was unsupported by the record.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he did not initially elaborate on what the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake would entail, other than generally working as a physiologist”
“appears to benefit the Petitioner, his unspecified potential employer(s), and the clients whom the Petitioner may assist as a physiologist”
“the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the letters of recommendation's generalized terms and conclusory statements, in turn, provide minimal information regarding how well positioned the Petitioner may be”
“the document does not provide even basic details about a model or plan for how the Petitioner will generally "advance his career"”
“the record does not establish how much progress the Petitioner may have made toward achieving the vaguely described endeavor”
“the academic documents provide minimal information regarding the education, skills, knowledge, and record of success the Petitioner may have had”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters bear faded, pixelated images of signatures that could have been affixed to the documents by an unidentified individual using a word processor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the plan provides minimal information regarding the Petitioner's model or plan for future activities”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“they appear to present a set of facts that did not exist at the time of filing”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“the record does not support that conclusion of the academic evaluation letter”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“he appears to have had approximately six months of post-bachelor's experience as of the March 2021 petition filing date”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
Notable
The Director's denial notice contained internally contradictory findings, stating both that the endeavor's substantial merit and national importance criteria were met and that the Petitioner appeared to have 'no proposed endeavor'; the AAO withdrew the Director's favorable national-importance finding. The AAO also flagged, via footnote, discrepancies in the dates of the Petitioner's academic credentials and doubts about signature authenticity on both recommendation letters and client invoices, and noted the invoices postdated the filing date under Matter of Katigbak/Izummi.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a pharmacist, proposed to work in the United States through her own company providing pharmaceutical reg
- The Petitioner, a Brazilian-trained physiotherapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist and entrepreneur in the Un
- The Petitioner, a resident physician in New York holding a Chinese bachelor of medicine (MBBS) degree found equivalent t
- The Petitioner, a music therapist, proposed to establish and expand music therapy services and community music programs
- The Petitioner, a physical therapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist in the United States while operating his