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 start a company providing minority and disadvantaged young girls with resources, programs, and a website-based plan to help them obtain collegiate golf scholarships.
Field: golf/youth athletic development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F); she was found not to meet the membership, academic record, ten years' experience, and recognition/contributions criteria.
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“The articles do not indicate that a baccalaureate degree is required for golfers to compete in the tournaments or become members of either organization.”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“The WGCA and NCAA are not institutions of learning, but athletic associations.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“Neither P-F-R-A- nor J-V- indicate that the Petitioner was employed as a golf entrepreneur focused on helping young golfers obtain collegiate scholarships.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“The letters do not indicate that her personal athletic achievements made records, that she coached other successful golfers, or otherwise significantly contributed to the sport of golf.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“As the Petitioner's company was registered after her petition was filed, we cannot consider whether it constitutes a significant contribution to her field or industry.”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- awards · credited
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
This is an exceptional-ability EB-2 case where the threshold classification itself failed, so the AAO expressly declined to reach the national interest waiver analysis at all (citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-). A key evidentiary issue was that the Petitioner's LLC was registered after the petition filing date, barring consideration of it as a significant contribution under Matter of Katigbak's fixed-eligibility-date rule.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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