dismissedFEB232024_03B52032024-02-23 · 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 sought to continue working as Head Soccer Coach and operator of his own sports training company, providing coaching, injury prevention/rehabilitation, soccer camps, and international training exchanges to youth and athletes.
Field: soccer coaching / sports training · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“In determining national importance, however, the relevant question is not the value of youth sports, physical activity, or the Petitioner's general occupation”
“the letters from Dr. A-J-R-, Dr. J-E-, K-M-, and Dr. D-S-A- do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
“he has not offered supporting evidence indicating that the benefits of his undertaking extend beyond the participants in his company's specific athletic programs”
“he has not demonstrated that his company's future staffing levels and business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Arizona or the United States”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the value of youth sports, physical activity, or the Petitioner's general occupation”
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
- 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
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 explicitly distinguishes petitioner's specialized skills/knowledge (prong 2 territory) from the endeavor's national importance (prong 1), reiterating that Dhanasar's first prong looks to the endeavor itself, not the petitioner's qualifications or general field importance.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- 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