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 cosmetologist, proposed to operate a beauty-industry consulting business and work as a cosmetology instructor, offering classes, workshops, and consulting services.
Field: cosmetology / beauty industry consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner did not meet 3 of 6 exceptional-ability criteria but did have a foreign equivalent advanced degree, qualifying her for EB-2. AAO reserved this issue as unnecessary given the NIW disposition.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show through supporting documentation how her endeavor sufficiently extends beyond her prospective clients or employees”
“The plan does not, however, provide an objective basis for these projections, nor are the numbers corroborated by probative evidence”
“this represents a material change in the proposed endeavor”
“the business plan held limited evidentiary value as it related to the material change to the petition”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan held limited evidentiary value as it related to the material change to the petition”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters of recommendation do not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner submits a brief and copies of documents already in the record”
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
Notable
AAO applied the material-change doctrine (Katigbak/Izummi) to a business plan submitted in response to an RFE, rejecting the Petitioner's argument that these precedents were 'misinterpreted and misapplied' to NIW petitions as an 'unrelated benefit application.' The AAO also expressly reserved the underlying EB-2 exceptional-ability/advanced-degree eligibility question as unnecessary given the dispositive Prong 1 failure.
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. 103.3
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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