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 dance studio owner and operator, proposed to open and operate dance studios in the United States, planning to expand to four studios in four states within five years.
Field: dance/fitness studio operation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish at least three of the six exceptional ability criteria and did not show a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field; her occupation as a dance studio owner/operator also did not meet the definition of 'profession' required for the license/certification and membership criteria.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“she has not shown her specific endeavor will extend beyond her clientele to impact the dance industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”
“she has not shown this positive impact will extend so far as to impact our society broadly”
“This level of activity within the industry is not broadly impactful as to rise to the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner does not sufficiently support her projections with the details and evidence necessary to show how she plans to reach these goals”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that [the school] qualifies as a 'college, university, school or other institution of learning'”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner's proposed occupation, a dance studio owner and operator, does not meet the definition of profession”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence to show a comparison of her ability as a dance studio owner to that which would ordinarily be encountered in the field”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner does not sufficiently support her projections with the details and evidence necessary to show how she plans to reach these goals”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The decision addresses both exceptional ability classification and the NIW national importance prong as independent alternate bases for dismissal; the AAO reserved prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary given the dispositive prong 1 failure.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- 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