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 concert pianist, proposed to continue performing and promoting piano music in the United States.
Field: piano/music concert performance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew the Director's finding that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, because pianists/musicians are not listed as a profession under section 101(a)(32) and the record did not establish a baccalaureate degree is the minimum entry requirement for the occupation; remanded for the Director to redetermine EB-2 eligibility.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“The relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work.”
“she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“she has not provided sufficient evidence to support such a conclusory statement”
“she has not demonstrated that her specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S . workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“the submission of a single translation certification that does not specifically identify the document or documents it purportedly accompanies does not meet the requirements”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“even if we were to consider these two awards, they would not alter our ultimate conclusion”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“we will not consider evidence, such as the Beneficiary's job offer to be an accompanist for her alma mater, that occurred after the date of filing”
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
Notable
AAO raised sua sponte an EB-2 'member of the professions' issue not identified by the Director, finding pianists/musicians are not listed as a profession under 101(a)(32) and remanding for the Director to readjudicate threshold eligibility, even though it also independently agreed the national importance prong (prong 1) was not met.
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. 103.2(b)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of Katigbak
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show the endeavor's impact extended beyond her immediate audience/employer to the broader U.S. music field or economy, defeating national importance prong; also EB-2 'profession' classification was undetermined and remanded.
Define the endeavor concretely and support national-importance claims with quantifiable, field-wide or economic impact evidence, not conclusory assertions about cultural value.
vague
economic_growth_generic · economic_job_creation · field_advancement
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a musician and music educator, proposed to advance music education in the United States by opening a pia
- The petitioner, a tattoo artist, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability along with a nationa
- The Petitioner, an MMA athlete and trainer, proposed to operate a jiu jitsu company through which he would train and com
- The Petitioner sought to establish an arts education academy in Ohio, with plans to expand to New York and Michigan, off
- The Petitioner, an art curator, proposed to establish a nonprofit cultural center/platform focused on exhibitions, oral