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 taekwondo instructor with exercise physiology training, proposed to continue working as an exercise physiologist offering consulting-type services to businesses, and separately (per a business plan submitted on RFE) to open and operate her own nutrition, fitness, and behavioral counseling company.
Field: exercise physiology / taekwondo instruction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of providing her particular services rather than the importance of exercise and exercise physiologists.”
“The Petitioner did not offer specific information and evidence to corroborate her assertions that the prospective impact of working as a taekwondo instructor or exercise physiologist rises to the level of national importance.”
“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy”
“the record does not show through supporting documentation how her specific services stand to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective clients, to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · ignored
“we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of opening and operating”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The Petitioner did not offer specific information and evidence to corroborate her assertions”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO declined to consider a materially changed proposed endeavor (opening her own company) first raised in response to an RFE, citing Matter of Izummi/Bardouille's rule against post-filing changed facts; the AAO noted the business plan omitted any mention of the taekwondo/special-needs work emphasized in the initial filing, suggesting an internally inconsistent theory of the endeavor.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution