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 fitness specialist/personal trainer and health coach, sought to continue working as a fitness and nutrition coach in the United States, including via a mobile application he developed and brand ambassador roles.
Field: fitness/personal training · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to meet at least three of the six exceptional ability evidentiary criteria; the AAO withdrew the Director's favorable finding on the degree/certificate criterion and the professional association membership criterion, and upheld denial of the recognition criterion. Because threshold eligibility failed, the AAO did not reach the Dhanasar NIW analysis.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the record does not show that any of these organizations offer degree programs or college degrees”
AAO decision text - certification membership · credited
- certification membership · discounted
“the evidence does not demonstrate that these entities require their members to be professionals as defined in the regulations”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“do not identify achievements and significant contributions to the field of fitness or personal training”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the record lacks sufficient evidence about the intended audience and volume of readership of this magazine/website”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“this evidence does not identify any achievement and significant contribution to the fitness industry”
AAO decision text
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
Case turned entirely on failure to establish EB-2 exceptional-ability threshold (degree/certificate criterion, professional association membership, and recognition criterion); AAO expressly reserved and did not reach the Dhanasar NIW prongs. Petitioner raised an unusual argument citing a veterans'-benefits statute (38 U.S.C. 3452(f)) to define 'institution of higher learning,' which the AAO rejected as inapplicable.
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)
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp