dismissedAPR032025_02B52032025-04-03 · appeal · Texas Service Center
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, an aesthetician, planned to operate her own aesthetics and health clinic in Florida offering spa and beauty services such as facials, massages, waxing, and eyelash extensions.
Field: aesthetics/cosmetology services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“she has not persuasively shown how her company will have a broader impact in the industry or nation beyond the individual clients she will serve”
“the business plan does not adequately support these projections of job and revenue creation and does not explain in detail how its forecasts were calculated”
“merely showing that a petitioner plans to work in that industry is not sufficient, in and of itself: to establish the endeavor's national importance”
“There is also little evidence that her future work stands to impact or significantly reduce any claimed national shortage”
“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”
“they do not discuss in detail why this endeavor, in particular, would have broader implications such that it rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not adequately support these projections of job and revenue creation”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not discuss in detail why this endeavor, in particular, would have broader implications”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“these are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the articles and reports do not discuss the Petitioner's specific endeavor or how it, in particular, would have a broader impact”
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
1,358coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO reserved both the underlying EB-2 exceptional ability classification and Dhanasar prongs 2 and 3, resolving the appeal solely on prong 1 national importance despite the Director having found prong 2 satisfied.
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
- Flores v. Garland
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