The Petitioner sought to establish and manage a barbershop and barber school in south Florida, where he would work as manager, barber, and barber instructor, with plans to expand to additional locations.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not demonstrate ... how [the Petitioner's] endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond the clients that agree to utilize their services, to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly”

“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for the plan's financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized.”

“Instead of focusing on the importance of an industry or field, or a shortage of workers in a field, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“the Petitioner's teaching to vocational barber students and to existing barbers at workshops does not rise to the level of having national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• certification membership · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that any of the certificates were issued from a "college, university, school, or other institution of learning"”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the letters do not meet the plain language of the criterion because they are not from his current or former employer(s)”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “the record does not include evidence showing the revenue for ______ was the Petitioner's salary or renumeration for his services”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for the plan's financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “they do not show that he has been recognized for his achievements or significant contributions to his field”

  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
• 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

Notable

AAO withdrew the Director's favorable finding on exceptional ability sua sponte on de novo review (reversing eligibility that had been granted below), while also withdrawing the Director's negative finding on substantial merit; ultimately dismissed solely on national importance despite disagreeing with Director on two of three sub-issues addressed. Petitioner raised a due-process argument under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(8)(iv) alleging the Director applied undisclosed policy, which AAO did not directly address.

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)
• Flores v. Garland
• Kazarian v. USCIS
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of L-A-C-

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