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 physical fitness trainer, sought EB-2 classification and a national interest waiver, though the specific endeavor he intended to pursue in the U.S. is not detailed in this remand decision.
Field: physical fitness training · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew the Director's finding that Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the occupation of physical fitness trainer is not listed under INA 101(a)(32) and Petitioner did not show a baccalaureate degree is the minimum entry requirement, nor did he submit required academic records or experience letters under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(i). The Director had not yet addressed the alternative exceptional-ability classification, which was remanded for consideration.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“The Petitioner has not presented evidence indicating that he meets either of these regulatory requirements.”
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 withdrew the Director's threshold determination sua sponte because the Director had erroneously found the Petitioner (a fitness trainer) qualified as an advanced-degree professional; the Petitioner himself argued on appeal that he only ever sought exceptional-ability classification, which the Director had never addressed. The AAO remanded without reaching any Dhanasar prong, withdrawing the Director's prior national-interest-waiver denial as premature.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director wrongly evaluated petitioner as advanced-degree professional (a classification he never claimed) instead of exceptional ability, requiring remand before NIW prongs could be assessed.
Ensure the Director's decision addresses the correct EB-2 classification actually claimed; procedural misclassification can force remand regardless of NIW merits.
vague
person_focused
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