The Petitioner sought to work as a sports coordinator and trainer, operating a soccer academy and fitness training company in Florida, and to facilitate cross-border expansion of Brazilian sports companies into the U.S. market.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“he has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his sports training business and its clientele to impact U.S. soccer or societal health and welfare more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce any national shortage resulting from this projected job growth. Shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process.”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “The Petitioner's education, skills, knowledge, and experience in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

The Petitioner argued national importance based on general field trends (childhood obesity, soccer's growing popularity, occupational growth of 19%), which the AAO explicitly rejected as conflating field importance with the specific endeavor's importance, and rejected the occupational-shortage argument as properly addressed through labor certification rather than NIW.

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.

• Poursina v. USCIS

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