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 continue operating as an entrepreneur and jiu-jitsu instructor, running a martial arts academy and using his marketing background to grow the business and its student base.
Field: jiu-jitsu instruction / martial arts academy business with marketing background · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner met only two of the six exceptional-ability criteria (academic record and ten years of experience) but failed to establish license/certification, salary, professional membership, or recognition of significant contributions, so he did not qualify as an individual of exceptional ability.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · credited
- certification membership · discounted
“The record does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor as an entrepreneur and jiu-jitsu instructor is a profession under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not establish "significant contributions to the industry."”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“it is unclear if this information is for the same geographical area where the Petitioner was working”
AAO decision text
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
The AAO found the Petitioner ineligible for the underlying EB-2 exceptional-ability classification and expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs even though the Petitioner briefed prongs one and three on appeal, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining advisory findings. The case is atypical in that the proposed endeavor is running a jiu-jitsu academy rather than a STEM-type venture.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Otiende
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