Sports performance training and coaching services
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance under the first Dhanasar prong.
Summarized by AI. Summaries on this site are written by AI and can contain errors. Always read the full decision on uscis.gov before relying on anything here. If a summary differs from the official decision, the official decision controls.
Summary
The petitioner planned to run a company offering performance and training services to athletes and coaches and sought a national interest waiver. The Director found the endeavor meritorious but not nationally important, and the AAO agreed on de novo review. It found that the appeal brief generally disagreed with the denial without identifying specific errors, that the revenue and job projections were not sufficiently explained and in any event did not show a scale rising to national importance, and that the record did not show benefits beyond the company's prospective clients. The AAO reserved the other prongs and the question of EB-2 eligibility.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| Prong 1: Substantial merit and national importance | Not met | For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor would be of national importance |
| Prong 2: Well positioned to advance the endeavor | Not reached | |
| Prong 3: Balance favors waiving the job offer | Not reached |
Why the AAO decided this way
- The appeal generally disagreed with the denial and did not point to specific errors in the Director's analysis.
- The business plan did not sufficiently explain the basis for its revenue and employment projections, and even if explained they did not show a scale rising to national importance.
- The record did not show benefits beyond the company's prospective clients, and the recommendation letters mostly described the petitioner's past experience rather than the prospective impact of the endeavor.
- The AAO reserved the second and third prongs and the question whether the petitioner meets the requirements of EB-2 classification.
Authorities cited
- Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010)
- Matter of Christo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015)
- Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016)
- Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989)
- Matter of Valencia, 19 I&N Dec. 354, 354-55 (BIA 1986)
- 1756, Inc. v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976)
- Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015)
- Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023)
Read the full decision on uscis.gov ↗
Please describe the error only. Do not send personal or case information. Anything you send will not be treated as confidential, and an error report does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Report an error in this summary