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 general manager of a private golf course country club, proposed to continue managing the club's operations, describing himself as a 'business executive/entrepreneur' who plans, directs, and coordinates company operations.
Field: country club / hospitality business management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Record did not establish an advanced degree (insufficient employer letter detailing progressive post-baccalaureate duties) nor exceptional ability (met only one of six regulatory criteria: degree; failed experience, salary, membership, and recognition criteria).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“activities which only benefit a single employer, like Country Club, would not rise to a level of national importance.”
“the record does not adequately support how the performance of these duties by the Petitioner would potentially prospectively impact the Petitioner's field”
“the record does not contain adequate evidence to identify any positive economic impact rising to a level of national importance from the Petitioner's endeavor”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“the recommendation letters the Petitioner submitted are not material, relevant, or probative evidence in the record of interest or support in the endeavor”
“simply having education, skills, and/or knowledge in isolation do not place a petitioner in a position to advance their proposed endeavor”
“the record does not reflect how the Petitioner's prior activities as described in the recommendation letters is either a similar effort... or how it constitutes a record of success”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established
“The record does not contain sufficient evidence of factors like the impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit to the U.S. of a petitioner's contributions, the urgency of a petitioner's contributions to the national interest”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“these statements are not supported by any evidence in the record which reflects that these letters represent noteworthy achievements and significant contributions”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“it did not contain a sufficient specific description of the duties the Petitioner performed”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“Thus, it is not a professional association, which is ordinarily an organization or association of professionals in the same field.”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- contract revenue · discounted
“it is not clear from the record how this economic impact would have a substantial prospective positive economic effect commensurate with national importance”
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
- Urgency not established · p3 — no reason shown why the benefit cannot wait for labour certification
Notable
AAO first found the Petitioner categorically ineligible for EB-2 classification (neither advanced degree nor exceptional ability), then, despite that dispositive finding, proceeded to independently analyze and reject all three Dhanasar prongs, treating each ground—categorical ineligibility, prong 1, prong 2, and prong 3—as an 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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of Y-B-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner conflated personal competence/experience with endeavor importance; endeavor (managing one country club) benefited only the employer, not the field or economy nationally, and petitioner was also categorically ineligible for EB-2.
Separate the endeavor from personal credentials: show concrete, field- or economy-wide impact (e.g., specific job creation numbers, depressed-area benefit) beyond the employing organization, and independently establish EB-2 eligibility with proper documentary evidence.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp