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 sought to operate an aesthetic beauty salon and training center as a permanent makeup artist, trainer, and salon owner, later also proposing a project offering free services to cancer patients.
Field: permanent makeup artistry / aesthetic beauty training and salon · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found only two of six exceptional ability criteria met, but AAO did not reach this issue on appeal, reserving its opinion because prong 1 was dispositive.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to operate an aesthetic beauty salon and training center has substantial merit but not national importance”
“this general evidence 1s insufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific, proposed endeavor”
“the evidence did not demonstrate the potential for substantial positive economic effects”
“the Petitioner again emphasizes on appeal that her previous experience in the industry establishes the national importance of the endeavor, without addressing the Director's finding that this claim primarily relates to the second Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters of support primarily focus on the Petitioner's own background and qualifications, rather than the actual proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“general evidence is insufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific, proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“did not sufficiently establish the basis for the revenue and staffing projections contained in the impact analysis report”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“a materially changed aspect to the proposed endeavor that was not part of the endeavor as described in the initial petition”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Notable
AAO expressly declined to reach the exceptional-ability threshold determination and Dhanasar prongs 2 and 3, treating prong 1's national-importance failure as fully dispositive; also notable is the finding that a cancer-patient charity project raised on RFE response was an impermissible material change to the endeavor as filed.
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)
- Chen v. INS
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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