The Petitioner, a freestyle wrestler, proposed to compete for a university-affiliated wrestling club in national competitions and coach other wrestlers, later broadening this on appeal to include coaching clients in sports and fitness and educational institutions.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that his involvement as a competitor stands to impact these wrestling teams or his sport at a level consistent with having national importance”

“Nor has he shown that his proposed U.S. coaching work is at a level that would offer national implications for his sport, or that the implications of such work stand to impact the sport more broadly, as opposed to being limited to his wrestling students”

“the Petitioner has not provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate what his unique wrestling techniques and training programs actually are”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate what his unique wrestling techniques and training programs actually are”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

Where this case turned

• 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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

The Director had found prongs 1 (substantial merit) and 2 satisfied but denied on prong 3; the AAO instead reframed and found prong 1's national-importance component unmet, dismissing on that alternate basis without reaching prong 3, explicitly noting each ground as independent and alternate.

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