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 Brazilian Jiu Jitsu practitioner and athletic trainer, proposed to operate his own company focused on Jiu Jitsu/grappling competitions and personal fitness training, generating revenue and creating jobs for U.S. workers.
Field: Brazilian Jiu Jitsu / athletic training · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO found the Petitioner did not establish five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience required for advanced degree equivalency; experience letters were vague/inconsistent and conflicted with prior visa applications and his own professional summary. However, because Petitioner was not on notice of these issues, this did not form the basis of dismissal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the reports are general in discussing nation-wide trends, rather than supporting that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have a broad impact in the field of athletic training”
“Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to shortages and trends in the field generally, rather than his specific proposed endeavor.”
“he has not supported these assertions with sufficient independent, objective evidence”
“The Petitioner does not state a location for his proposed Jiu Jitsu company and does not provide a business plan or describe his proposed business act1v1t1es.”
“the professional plan does not state the number of employees the Petitioner intends to hire or jobs he will create”
“Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the use of the Petitioner's experience will reach beyond benefitting his own company and clients or have broader implications within the field of athletic training.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“does not explain how [the letter writer] has knowledge of the Petitioner's experience or self-employment”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- business plan · discounted
“does not provide a business plan or describe his proposed business act1v1t1es”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not explain how [the letter writer] has knowledge of the Petitioner's claimed experience”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the reports are general in discussing nation-wide trends, rather than supporting that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have a broad impact”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- awards · ignored
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO found significant inconsistencies in the Petitioner's claimed employment history across experience letters, prior non-immigrant visa applications, and his own professional summary (e.g., undisclosed employment as a minister and pet memorial business owner, overlapping full-time theology study and claimed full-time work), casting doubt on threshold eligibility; however, because Petitioner was not on notice of these issues during prior proceedings, the threshold failure was not used as the basis for dismissal, and the AAO instead based dismissal on the dispositive failure of Dhanasar prong 1. The AAO also noted in a footnote that it disagreed with the Director's finding that Petitioner was well-positioned (prong 2) but did not need to reach that issue.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner relied on generic industry/field-growth reports and unsupported assertions rather than concrete evidence (business plan, jobs, revenue, location) tying his specific endeavor to national-level impact.
Support national importance with a concrete, documented business plan showing scale (jobs, revenue, geographic reach) tied to the specific proposed endeavor, not generic field-trend reports.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers