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 martial arts instructor, proposed to establish and operate a martial arts academy in Massachusetts.
Field: martial arts instruction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on a foreign bachelor's degree in physical education plus five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not establish that the martial arts academy would have a broad impact on the field of martial arts commensurate with national importance, but rather that its impact would be limited to the business's customers”
“there is no clear methodology or basis for these projections”
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not met his burden to establish that his proposed endeavor stands to have "substantial positive economic effects" that would be commensurate with national importance”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake."”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or help demonstrate its "potential prospective impact."”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor nor help establish its national importance”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“there is no clear methodology or basis for these projections”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the evidence relates to entrepreneurship and the economy in general, not to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of operating a martial arts academy”
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 rejected petitioner's procedural/due-process argument that the Director should have addressed prongs 2 and 3, noting agencies need not make advisory findings once eligibility fails on prong 1 (citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-). A footnote states AAO would remand to the Director for findings on prongs 2 and 3 if petitioner overcame the prong-1 denial via a future motion. Another footnote notes the business was not yet operating and the LLC's registered business address was the petitioner's residence. AAO also declined to address portions of the appeal brief referring to the petitioner as a 'business development and sales professional,' finding them unrelated to the actual record.
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
- Matter of E-M-
- 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