dismissedSEP072022_02B52032022-09-07 · appeal · Nebraska 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, a tennis coach, proposed to open and operate his own tennis academy offering lessons, leagues, and training, while also developing a racket-mounted analytics device.
Field: tennis coaching / sports instruction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the [P]etitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor in this case stands to sufficiently extend beyond his business and clients to impact the industry more broadly.”
“the [P]etitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor which he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the region or nation.”
“the generalized observation that tennis provides players physical, social, and mental benefits does not address how the specific endeavor will have national or even global implications within a particular field”
“the record does not establish how employing those four workers demonstrates significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area.”
“the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not establish how employing those four workers demonstrates significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“conjecture and speculation to claim that the [P]etitioner will contribute to the American economy”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition.”
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
- 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
2,501coded 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
Petitioner argued on appeal that the Director should have issued another RFE rather than deny the petition, which AAO rejected as misplaced and self-undermining of eligibility. New facts raised for first time on appeal (pickleball expansion, charitable teaching plans, veteran/senior support) were disregarded under Matter of Katigbak as post-filing facts.
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)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Section 291 of the Act
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