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 soccer coach, proposed to continue as girls' director of coaching and men's assistant coach at the Petitioner's academy, recruiting female athletes, expanding facilities and image deals, and developing world-class players.
Field: soccer coaching · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found the Beneficiary eligible as an advanced degree professional; AAO did not disturb this, though noted NOID was internally unclear on this point without materiality to the outcome.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
“it does not sufficiently show how they extend beyond the Petitioner or its clients”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's endeavor has national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint, are not sufficiently relevant”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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 withdrew SCOPS' prong-1 substantial merit finding but affirmed the national importance failure as dispositive; also addressed and rejected procedural arguments (prior unpublished approval, RFE vs NOID discretion, NOID clarity) and found prongs 2 and 3 waived on appeal because Petitioner did not contest them, so those prongs remain unanalyzed by AAO despite SCOPS having found them unmet below.
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. 103.3(c)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of R-A-M-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show the endeavor's impact extended beyond the petitioner and its clients to a field, region, or national economy, dooming national importance.
Show concrete broader-than-employer impact (field, region, economy, job creation) with specifics, not just that the field or employer is important.
moderate
economic_growth_generic · field_advancement
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a pharmacist, proposed to work in the United States through her own company providing pharmaceutical reg
- The Petitioner, a Brazilian-trained physiotherapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist and entrepreneur in the Un
- The Petitioner, a resident physician in New York holding a Chinese bachelor of medicine (MBBS) degree found equivalent t
- The Petitioner, a music therapist, proposed to establish and expand music therapy services and community music programs
- The Petitioner, a physical therapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist in the United States while operating his