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 employment as general manager of a private country club, arguing his management and turnaround of the club's profitability constituted a nationally important endeavor.
Field: media arts / country club general management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not establish 5 years of progressive experience in his field (media arts) because employment letters lacked job duty descriptions, nor did he meet 3 of 6 exceptional ability criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“the evidence in the record does not support the Petitioner's argument that continuing to managel Iwill have the significant cultural, economic, or social impacts that rise to the level of national importance.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“the record does not sufficiently link the field of the Petitioner's educational credential, media arts, with the performance of general management duties for corporations.”
“the letters of support provided by the Petitioner on motion do not detail his prior work history, industry recognition, or significant contributions to the field of management that would warrant a finding that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the letter from S-S- provides the job title and dates of employment but does not provide a description of the Petitioner's duties”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters of support provided by the Petitioner on motion do not detail his prior work history, industry recognition, or significant contributions to the field of management”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the contract submitted on motion were completed after the filing of the petition... we may not consider it because it occurred after the petition was filed”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner's arguments on motion do not directly address the deficiencies identified in our prior decision”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- degree endeavor mismatch · p2 — the advanced degree is in a different field from the endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Notable
Petitioner cited Matter of Caron International Inc., a repealed H-1B nonimmigrant precedent, to argue exceptional ability via business turnaround; AAO rejected this as inapplicable to current EB-2 regulatory criteria. Evidence of a post-filing contract was excluded under Matter of Katigbak's time-of-filing rule.
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. 103.5
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of Katigbak
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod