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 found and direct a school in Hawaii combining bodyboarding instruction with environmental/ocean-ecology education, modeled on a similar program he had run in Brazil, with hopes of eventually replicating it in other U.S. coastal areas.
Field: environmental education / bodyboarding sports school · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO found the Petitioner met three of six exceptional ability criteria (academic record, ten years full-time experience, and recognition of achievements/contributions), establishing underlying EB-2 exceptional ability classification.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the evidence is not sufficient to show this endeavor's national importance”
“we find that the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor in this case stands to sufficiently extend beyond his school and its participants to impact the field more broadly than his specific programs”
“Nor has he shown that his operation of ___________ would have broader implications in his sport”
“the record does not include sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected job growth attributable to his proposed school”
“The Petitioner has not shown that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from this project would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · credited
- certification membership · credited
- media · credited
- recommendation letter · discounted
“he has not shown his proposed endeavor in this case stands to sufficiently extend beyond his school and its participants”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not include sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected job growth attributable to his proposed school”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO credited the Petitioner's exceptional-ability threshold showing (unusual outcome for this population) but dismissed solely on Dhanasar prong 1, analogizing the case to Dhanasar's own classroom-teacher example of insufficient broader field impact; NYSDOT is cited only in a footnote noting it was vacated by Dhanasar, not applied as the operative framework.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Section 291 of the Act
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