NIW Bearings
dismissedNOV272020_03B52032020-11-27 · appeal · Nebraska 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, a taekwondo athlete and coach, proposed to continue competing and coaching taekwondo for a specific club, aiming to train the next generation of athletes and promote the sport.

Field: taekwondo (athletics and coaching) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Director found Petitioner met only 2 of 6 exceptional ability criteria (membership and recognition for achievements); on appeal Petitioner claimed two additional criteria (10 years experience, license) but failed to identify evidence or rebut Director's findings, so did not establish 3 of 6 criteria.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he has not demonstrated that his involvement as a competitor stands to impact USA Taekwondo, the U.S. national team, or his sport a level consistent with having national importance.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond to impact the sport of taekwondo more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's competing and coaching would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · 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
  • certification membership · credited
  • resume experience · discounted
    “does not specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact relating to the Director's determinations for these criteria”
    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

The decision separately denies exceptional-ability threshold eligibility (only 2 of 6 criteria satisfied, with appeal failing to substantively challenge the other two) and also denies NIW prong 1, expressly stating both grounds are independent and alternate bases for dismissal. The AAO explicitly relegates the Petitioner's athletic/coaching accomplishments to prong 2 and declines to reach prongs 2 and 3.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show his athletic/coaching endeavor's impact extended beyond his club to the sport or U.S. economy at a nationally important scale.

Transferable lesson

Support national importance claims with concrete evidence of broader field-wide, economic, or employment impact, not just personal achievements or a single club's endorsement.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

field_advancement · economic_job_creation

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer