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 proposed to direct operations of a company offering free after-school volleyball and soccer classes to children and adolescents from low-income families in multiple U.S. states, aiming to promote socialization, prevent bullying, and provide access to scholarships and elite competition.
Field: youth sports education / community sports programs · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found and AAO did not disturb the finding that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not illustrate how her specific endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond the children and adolescents she teaches to impact the industry, region, or nation more broadly”
“the Petitioner's work in an important industry or sector, even one that is the subject of national priorities, is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“she has not offered sufficient, specific evidence showing any substantial economic impact directly attributable to her future work”
“the Petitioner has provided little explanation or evidentiary support for the basis of these figures”
“General conclusory statements without a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between the proposed endeavor and the claimed impacts are insufficient”
“these letters are of limited probative value in determining the endeavor's national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“these documents provide only general background information on the aforementioned areas and do not specifically relate to or discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“her assertions are largely conclusory and do not explain how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor would provide such benefits outside of the students she teaches”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner has provided little explanation or evidentiary support for the basis of these figures”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“these letters reflect only a general intent to sponsor the Petitioner's endeavor without any specific monetary commitments or any binding contractual terms”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the document reflects that the account is solely in the Petitioner's spouse's name”
AAO decision text
All 8 evidence items
- other · discounted
“the photographs themselves are not dated and the referenced events post-date USCIS' June 2024 site visit to her home”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“insofar as these letters, the Petitioner, and other evidence in the record comment on these areas, they are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“these documents do not sufficiently clarify the contradictions in the evidence, nor do they overcome the revocation”
AAO decision text
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
- 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
Notable
This is a revocation appeal rather than a standard denial appeal — SCOPS initially approved the petition in October 2022, then revoked after a site visit following an adjustment of status interview. The AAO found significant credibility concerns: taxes were retroactively filed in 2024 for years 2021-2024, the dedicated funds bank account was solely in the spouse's name, sponsor letters from 2021 showed no actual disbursements, undated photographs post-dated the site visit, and the website still contained template/plagiarized language nearly three years after a web design contract was executed. The AAO analyzed only Prong 1 national importance as dispositive, explicitly declining to reach Prongs 2 and 3. The Petitioner holds only a foreign equivalent bachelor's degree in physical education but was found to qualify under EB-2 as an advanced degree professional based on experience.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
The endeavor's benefits did not extend beyond her own students to the field, region, or nation; reliance on the general value of youth sports plus unsupported economic projections and conclusory letters failed prong one.
Tie impact to your specific endeavor, not the general value of your field; person-focused letters, the general worth of the sector, and unsupported job-creation projections do not establish national importance.
moderate
public_health · economic_job_creation · government_interest
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