dismissedOCT172023_03B52032023-10-17 · appeal · Texas 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 sought to work as an artistic director through his own company, producing theatrical, dance, and film projects, promoting cultural festivals, and building international cultural partnerships in the U.S.
Field: performing arts / artistic direction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its artistic projects to impact his field”
“The issue here, however, is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”
“he has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where his company will operate is economically depressed”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in his field, however, relate to the second prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The letter from S-P- does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”
AAO decision text - other · credited
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
1,358coded 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
AAO found the endeavor had substantial merit (crediting executive orders, proclamations, and articles on arts/STEM/substance-abuse prevention) but failed solely on national importance/scope prong, expressly declining to reach prongs 2 and 3; also expressly declined to remand for threshold EB-2 classification determination since NIW failure was dispositive.
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.
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- 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