NIW Bearings
dismissedJAN052024_05B52032024-01-05 · 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, an exercise physiologist, proposed to provide individualized physical education, adaptive training, rehabilitative and preventive physical activity, and weight-loss services to youth, adults, the elderly, and persons with disabilities in the United States.

Field: exercise physiology / physical education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

The Director had found the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, but the AAO withdrew that finding, concluding he had not accrued five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience because part of his claimed employment predated his bachelor's degree and he left Brazil before completing five years, with insufficient evidence he continued full-time on-site duties after relocating to the U.S.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

He did not identify the type of environment in which he intends to work, whether a school, rehabilitation center, gym or physical fitness facility, or other type of employer.
Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the Petitioner has not shown that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"
Moreover, shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process.
Pursuing employment in an area that is adjacent to the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the national importance of a specific endeavor.
While the authors express their high opinion of the Petitioner and his work, they do not discuss his specific proposed endeavor or explain why it has national importance.

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    they do not discuss his specific proposed endeavor or explain why it has national importance.
    AAO decision text
  • media · credited
  • resume experience · discounted
    the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    the Petitioner has provided little detail regarding how he will pursue his proposed endeavor beyond indicating he intends to continue to work in the field
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    they have not demonstrated how the Petitioner's performance of one-on-one work with individual clients... will have the required potential prospective impact in the broader field.
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Endeavor too vague · p1described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
  • Letters conclusory · p1letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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

The AAO withdrew the Director's favorable threshold EB-2 finding (advanced degree professional) sua sponte, finding the Petitioner's post-baccalaureate experience insufficient, but reserved the exceptional-ability claim and the prong 2/3 issues because the prong 1 national-importance failure was dispositive. The Petitioner argued alignment with the CDC 'Active People, Healthy Nation' initiative, which the AAO rejected as merely 'adjacent' to national initiatives rather than demonstrating impact of the specific endeavor.

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
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles