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 martial arts instructor, sought to continue working in that occupation in the United States, though the exact nature of the proposed endeavor was unclear due to inconsistent representations in the record.
Field: martial arts instruction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner did not demonstrate exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii), failing to establish at least three of the six regulatory criteria, so categorical EB-2 eligibility was not shown.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“the Petitioner's inconsistent representations obscured the nature of their proposed endeavor rendering it impossible to evaluate its substantial merit or national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner's appeal is essentially a reiteration of the documentation and argument they previously submitted with their RFE response.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
The AAO resolved the case entirely on the threshold exceptional-ability failure, expressly declining to reach the Dhanasar national-interest prongs because categorical EB-2 ineligibility made such consideration unnecessary. It nonetheless adopted and affirmed the Director's separate finding that inconsistent representations obscured the endeavor, invoking a line of circuit precedent (Burbano, Prado-Gonzalez, Giday, Chen) on the propriety of adopting a lower decision's reasoning.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Chen v. INS
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to establish categorical EB-2 eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii), making the Dhanasar national interest analysis unnecessary.
Secure the underlying EB-2 classification first with consistent, well-documented exceptional-ability evidence before litigating national interest waiver prongs.
vague
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a musician and music educator, proposed to advance music education in the United States by opening a pia
- The petitioner, a tattoo artist, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability along with a nationa
- The Petitioner, an MMA athlete and trainer, proposed to operate a jiu jitsu company through which he would train and com
- The Petitioner sought to establish an arts education academy in Ohio, with plans to expand to New York and Michigan, off
- The Petitioner, an art curator, proposed to establish a nonprofit cultural center/platform focused on exhibitions, oral