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 former multi-sport trainer and coach, proposed to establish and lead a swim school in Florida offering swim lessons, private training for competitive swimmers, adapted instruction for persons with disabilities, instructor training courses, and related wellness classes.
Field: adapted physical education / swim instruction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director and AAO found Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional based on bachelor's degree equivalency and five years progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the business plan would not demonstrate the proposed endeavor's significant potential to either employ U.S. workers or to substantially impact the regional or national economy”
“The Petitioner does not offer an evidentiary basis to conclude that his operation of a swim school with one location will have such far-reaching results.”
“the Petitioner has not established how his proposed teaching or training activities would reach beyond the limited number of participants in these courses”
“Pursuing employment or operating a business in an area that is adjacent to the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the national importance of a specific endeavor.”
“While the authors express their high opinion of the Petitioner and his work, they do not discuss his specific proposed endeavor or explain why it has national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan would not demonstrate the proposed endeavor's significant potential to either employ U.S. workers or to substantially impact the regional or national economy”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not discuss his specific proposed endeavor or explain why it has national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Pursuing employment or operating a business in an area that is adjacent to the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the national importance”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- 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
The AAO agreed with Petitioner that economic impact is not the sole basis for national importance and considered broader field-impact and national-initiative arguments (citing CDC publication on inclusion in physical education), but still found the endeavor's impact too limited in scope; second and third prongs expressly reserved as unnecessary to reach.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
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