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 establish and operate a martial arts and self-defense training business in central Florida, offering services to individuals, police officers, and security personnel, with plans to eventually expand to other locations.
Field: martial arts and self-defense training · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not establish 5 years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience for the advanced-degree pathway (issue waived on appeal but independently confirmed), and met only 1 of the 6 required exceptional-ability criteria (experience and membership criteria both rejected).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he did not submit a business plan or similar evidence to substantiate his claims regarding the job creation and economic impacts of his proposed endeavor.”
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how this impact would extend beyond his students and clients to have broader implications within the field.”
“The Petitioner's broad assertion that his proposed endeavor will "enhanc[e] business operations on behalf of the nation, and contribut[e] to a streamlined economic landscape," is not adequately supported by the record.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“it does not state that he was a full-time employee for a period of at least ten years, as required by the plain language of the regulation”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record did not establish...that they otherwise constitute "professional associations" consistent with this regulatory criterion”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the Director...correctly noted that it relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - business plan · ignored
“he did not submit a business plan or similar evidence to substantiate his claims regarding the job creation and economic impacts”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO found the threshold EB-2 issue alone could have been dispositive (Petitioner failed both advanced-degree and exceptional-ability pathways), but nonetheless proceeded to briefly analyze the NIW prong 1 and found it independently dispositive; Petitioner's vague claim that the Director applied a heightened standard of proof was rejected as unelaborated and unsupported.
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(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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