NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL232021_03B52032021-07-23 · appeal · Nebraska Service Center

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 Beneficiary, a gymnastics coach, proposed to work as a coach specializing in training elite female gymnasts, including duties such as choreography, conditioning, technique instruction, and safety oversight.

Field: gymnastics coaching · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO agreed with the Director that the Beneficiary qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii), meeting at least three of six criteria. Separately noted that failure to submit required ETA-9089 or ETA-750 forms meant 'the petition cannot be approved' for this reason alone.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary's coaching would impact the field of gymnastics or sports more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the specific gymnasts and workplace he serves”
“the Petitioner improperly relies on the prospective impact the Beneficiary might have on the gymnasts he coaches as sufficient to meet the first Dhanasar prong”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“Even if we consider a national shortage of coaches as a persuasive argument, the Petitioner has submitted little evidence to substantiate how the Beneficiary's coaching would address a national shortage”
“The Petitioner has not shown benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Beneficiary's coaching work”
“Many letters contain vague and general statements, such as that the Beneficiary brought "the most scientifically valid training approaches"”
“several of the letters repeat exact phrases that the Petitioner provided in its initial cover letter on behalf of the Beneficiary”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “Many letters contain vague and general statements... The author of such statements offered little explanatory detail for these claims”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “The lack of publicity for the Beneficiary's coaching services suggests that the Beneficiary's coaching has not reached a level of national interest”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “even if this technique made a broader impact in the gymnastics field, a conclusion not supported by the record, the evidence would not support a finding of a sustained impact”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
  • 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
  • Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

AAO noted an independent, non-waiver-related basis for denial: failure to submit required ETA-9089 or ETA-750 forms, stating 'For this reason alone, the petition cannot be approved.' AAO also cited a district court decision (Hamal) regarding identical language across recommendation letters undermining credibility, and noted a letter-writer misgendered the Beneficiary despite claiming familiarity with his work.

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)
  • INA 291
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer