dismissedMAY132024_07B52032024-05-13 · 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 establish a specialized physical training services firm offering personalized functional exercise training programs to groups and individuals, headquartered in Georgia with additional business units in Georgia and Florida.
Field: athletic training / physical education / fitness services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not dispute, that Petitioner established he was an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis, nor do they demonstrate a significant potential to either employ U.S. workers or to substantially impact the regional or national economy”
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence that the areas where his company intends to operate are economically depressed”
“none of them offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of his proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend beyond his clients”
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“none of them offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of his proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend beyond his clients”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the articles and reports do not discuss any particulars of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its prospective impact rising to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
1,358coded 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
The Petitioner's business plan invoked the HUBZone program to argue economic benefit but conceded the company would not qualify for HUBZone certification; AAO treated this as unsupported. AAO reserved prongs 2 and 3 after finding prong 1 dispositive.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- 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