The Petitioner sought to operate a beauty and wellness consultancy that would provide services and training workshops to help clients achieve wellness outcomes.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“It is not the importance of the field that determines an endeavor's national importance, but rather how the specific endeavor will impact the field on a level commensurate with national importance.”

“Here, however, the business plan does not adequately support its projections ofrevenue creation.”

“the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized”

“we find that the record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond her clients to affect the region or nation more broadly”

“she neglects to illustrate how the Petitioner's trainings will impact the field on nationally important level, beyond her students”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the advisory opinion is of little probative value as Dr. focus mainly on the importance, size, and growth of the U.S. beauty and wellness industry”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “This report is of little evidentiary value as it does not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not explain how this evidence is relevant to national importance as it points to the Petitioner's past accomplishments, training, and experiences”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not explain how this evidence is relevant to national importance”

  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

The AAO found the Petitioner ineligible under the threshold EB-2 advanced-degree category for failing to submit a translated transcript, reserved the exceptional-ability threshold question and prongs 2-3 as unnecessary, and evidence submitted after filing (additional articles, job offers, training documentation) was excluded as untimely under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1),(12).

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. 103.2(b)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(3)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
• The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
• The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
• The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
• The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution