dismissedDEC192024_03B52032024-12-19 · 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 proposed to work as an exercise physiologist and entrepreneur, providing personal training and clinical exercise services while establishing fitness centers and wellness clinics across the United States, including in economically distressed areas.
Field: exercise physiology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“our focus in assessing national importance is on the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake and its prospective impact rather than the importance of the industry or profession”
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate his work as an exercise physiologist and entrepreneur would extend beyond his clients”
“he does not explain and has not provided sufficient evidence showing how this would be accomplished or the scale of any potential economic impact”
“the record is insufficient to establish his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“do not address the specific services the Petitioner would provide as an exercise physiologist or his plans for establishing fitness centers, wellness clinics”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“relates to whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor rather than whether his proposed endeavor is nationally important”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“our focus in assessing national importance is on the specific endeavor...rather than the importance of the industry or profession”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“lack sufficient probative detail and are not corroborated in the record to establish the asserted contributions would have broader implications”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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 agreed with the Director that the endeavor had substantial merit but found national importance lacking, reserving prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary under Bagamasbad.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
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