The petitioner, a judo coach and Black Belt holder, proposed to run his own martial arts company in Florida providing judo and sports training programs to children and adults, with plans to expand nationally.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“does not focus on the importance of issues to the field in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“has not established that his proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond his clientele to impact his field more broadly.”

“did not show that such earnings are significantly higher than other companies in his field or would otherwise have a significant positive economic effect.”

“do not address the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor.”

“did not show that such earnings are significantly higher than other companies in his field.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “did not show that such earnings are significantly higher than other companies in his field or would otherwise have a significant positive economic effect”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “these latter records are dated in 2023 after the petition was filed in November 2022, they cannot be considered”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “do not address the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “does not establish that the impact of his proposed endeavor would extend beyond the individual students his company would serve”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “these reports discuss the role of school-based programs in the health and well-being of children, but they do not mention the Petitioner or address his proposed endeavor”

  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
• 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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO withdrew the Director's favorable EB-2 advanced-degree-professional finding (petitioner failed to show degree equivalency or that a bachelor's degree was the minimum entry requirement for his occupation), but reserved the exceptional-ability alternative and proceeded directly to the dispositive Dhanasar prong-one national-importance analysis, ultimately dismissing on that basis without reaching prongs two or three.

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
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of Katigbak
• 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