dismissedMAR212024_05B52032024-03-21 · appeal · Texas Service Center
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 open a physical fitness company offering cross training for circus artists and students, personal training, martial arts training, and a bodybuilding subscription service, serving as founder, trainer, and performer.
Field: physical fitness industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show how his specific endeavor will create these jobs”
“the staffing levels themselves are not substantial enough to rise to the level of national importance”
“the record does not establish the proposed endeavor will benefit more than the direct clients it will serve or that the Petitioner's business would impact the physical fitness field more broadly”
“The Petitioner's claims, that his company will benefit the U.S. economy and enhance societal welfare, have not been established through independent and objective evidence”
“It is the importance of the specific endeavor we must analyze and not the industry itself”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“These calculations were done using industry standards and the record does not show how his specific endeavor will create these jobs.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“Past experience is applicable to prong two analysis... but is not proof of national importance.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“reiterates many of the same arguments the Petitioner makes that have been addressed above”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“they also do not show national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“does not connect to this petitioner's proposed endeavor as business development professionals are not included anywhere else in the record”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO reserved the underlying EB-2 advanced-degree classification issue as unnecessary given dispositive prong 1 failure, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-. The decision distinguishes between industry-wide importance and importance of the specific endeavor, and separately notes past experience/letters are relevant to prong 2, not prong 1.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
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