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 proposed to open a gym and martial arts studio offering cross training, boxing, kickboxing, Muay Thai, and Brazilian jiu-jitsu classes, plus training future martial arts teachers.
Field: gym, health, and fitness clubs industry and martial arts studios industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found and AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies as advanced degree professional based on combined education and experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“these documents do not directly address the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposed to undertake - establishing a gym and martial arts studio.”
“he has not provided sufficient documentary evidence that his proposed endeavor as an exercise trainer and a group fitness instructor at his gym and martial arts studio would impact the gym, health, and fitness clubs industry”
“the business plan does not provide sufficient details ofthe basis for these projections or adequately explain how this revenue and staffing targets will be realized.”
“the record lacks sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner's business will have an impact on the gym, health, and fitness clubs industry, the martial arts studios industry, the field of health and fitness, or the U.S. economy at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated how the creation of 10 jobs by the company would constitute employment of a significant population of workers”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“lack of supporting details detracts from the credibility and probative value of the business plan”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the record does not sufficient demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has national or global implications within the field of health and fitness”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“these documents do not directly address the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposed to undertake”
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
AAO relies heavily on industry-wide economic reports (market growth, SBA funding priorities) which it distinguishes from evidence of the specific endeavor's own impact; also faults the economically-depressed-area jobs argument for not showing the 10 created jobs constitute a 'significant population of workers.'
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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