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 former professional soccer player and fitness/wellness coordinator, proposed to open and operate his own company providing consulting and training services aimed at reducing health issues among children and adolescents.
Field: fitness and wellness coaching/training · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew SCOPS's finding that Petitioner qualified as an individual of exceptional ability, concluding he met none of the six regulatory criteria: experience was not full-time or in the proposed occupation, coaching licenses were obtained after filing, salary evidence lacked comparative data, professional association membership was inconsistent and not shown to require a baccalaureate degree, and achievements/letters did not show significant contributions to the field.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the record does not establish the experience was full-time or for the occupation for which he is being sought”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record establishes he obtained these "coaching licenses" after filing the petition and therefore they cannot be considered in our analysis”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter does not detail how these constitute significant contributions to the industry”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the record does not contain additional evidence in order to compare his salary to others in the field”
AAO decision text
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
The AAO found the Petitioner failed to establish exceptional ability under the threshold EB-2 criteria and explicitly declined to reach the Dhanasar NIW prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad for not issuing 'purely advisory findings' on unnecessary issues, even though the Petitioner argued on appeal that he met all three prongs.
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
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Katigbak
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