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 initially proposed to work as a soccer coach for a U.S. soccer academy, but on appeal newly asserted he would instead work as a business development professional aligning U.S. companies' sales and marketing strategy with the market.
Field: soccer coaching (later recharacterized on appeal as business development/marketing) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner presented inconsistent evidence about his occupation and proposed endeavor (soccer coach vs. business development professional raised for the first time on appeal), and failed to specifically rebut the Director's finding that he met only one of six exceptional-ability criteria, resulting in a waived/undeveloped argument.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record in this matter does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his future employer(s) and the individuals that he will provide soccer coaching services to”
“he has not demonstrated that his specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“By presenting only generalized statements of eligibility without explaining the specific aspects of the Director's decision they consider to be incorrect”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies and ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies.”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
Petitioner materially changed his claimed occupation/endeavor on appeal—from soccer coach to 'business development professional'—which the AAO treated as an impermissible post-filing shift under Izummi/Katigbak and as a basis for dispositive denial. The AAO also found the petitioner waived his exceptional-ability argument by failing to identify specific errors in the Director's criteria analysis (citing Matter of O-R-E- waiver doctrine), and nonetheless addressed and rejected the national-importance prong as an alternate, independent basis for dismissal.
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)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a musician and music educator, proposed to advance music education in the United States by opening a pia
- The petitioner, a tattoo artist, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability along with a nationa
- The Petitioner, an MMA athlete and trainer, proposed to operate a jiu jitsu company through which he would train and com
- The Petitioner sought to establish an arts education academy in Ohio, with plans to expand to New York and Michigan, off
- The Petitioner, an art curator, proposed to establish a nonprofit cultural center/platform focused on exhibitions, oral