dismissedFEB032023_02B52032023-02-03 · 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, a fitness/Pilates instructor with prior experience in Brazil, sought to operate her own U.S. fitness studio offering personal training, group classes, and online sessions, later expanding via a business plan to include multi-state franchising and job creation.

Field: fitness and wellness industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions with a bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience equivalent to an advanced degree; AAO noted a possible occupation-definition problem in a footnote but declined to resolve it since the appeal was dismissed on other grounds.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“National statistics about health and obesity do not establish national importance, unless the Petitioner is also able to establish that her work will affect enough people”

“Material revisions to the proposed endeavor cannot retroactively establish eligibility at the petition's filing date.”

“The Petitioner did not submit the multiplier evidence itself or show that her proposed endeavor falls under the categories named.”

“meaning that she will draw on the existingpool of already-qualified trainers rather than add to their number”

“Identical language in letters "suggests that the letters were all prepared by the same person and calls into question the persuasive value of the letters' content."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“Material revisions to the proposed endeavor cannot retroactively establish eligibility at the petition's filing date.”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“Identical language in letters suggests that the letters were all prepared by the same person and calls into question the persuasive value of the letters' content.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“Their satisfaction shows that the Petitioner's work has been effective for individual clients, but does not extrapolate into national importance.”
AAO decision text
degree · credited

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
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

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 applied the 'material change' doctrine (Izummi/Katigbak) to reject a business plan drafted years after filing that introduced franchise expansion not present in the original petition; also flagged an unresolved discrepancy between EPI and RIMS II job-multiplier figures without deciding it, and reserved both the threshold occupation-classification question and the third Dhanasar prong since the first-prong national-importance failure was dispositive.

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)
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of Izummi
Matter of Katigbak
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer