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 operate a martial arts sports entertainment business in the United States, including holding mixed martial arts tournaments and developing a program to teach mixed martial arts to low-income children and adults.
Field: mixed martial arts / sports entertainment · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability, meeting only one of the six regulatory criteria (recognition for achievements) after AAO withdrew the Director's findings on the experience and membership criteria.
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner did not establish that these certificates were earned from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence from current or former employers that documents his ten years of full-time experience”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record does not demonstrate a license or certification is required for his profession or occupation”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The record lacks sufficient information to show that the Petitioner commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established that it is a professional association”
AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
- media · credited
- business plan · ignored
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
AAO withdrew the Director's favorable findings on two of the six exceptional-ability criteria (membership and experience), reducing the Petitioner's satisfied criteria from three to one, and expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar NIW prongs because the underlying EB-2 exceptional ability classification was not established; also corrected the Petitioner's mistaken claim on appeal that he had been found to qualify as an advanced degree professional.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Flores v. Garland
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- 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