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 barber, barber instructor, and business owner in Brazil, sought to continue and expand his barbering-related entrepreneurial and instructional work in the United States.
Field: barbering / barber instruction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
On motion, Petitioner attempted to establish exceptional ability via education and experience criteria (204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) and related learning-institution criterion); AAO found new evidence (Instagram page, company website, accounting-firm letter) insufficient to show a qualifying institution of learning or ten years of full-time experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“his brief does not provide sufficient analysis of how these articles provide new facts such that they have the potential to change our outcome.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“not sufficient evidence to establish that these organizations are a "college, university, school, or other institution of learning"”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“this letter does not satisfy this criterion since it does not show that the Petitioner has at least ten years of full-time experience”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner has not presented new facts that overcomes our prior decision”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“his brief does not provide sufficient analysis of how these articles provide new facts such that they have the potential to change our outcome”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
This is a second combined motion to reopen and reconsider following a prior dismissed appeal and first combined motion; the case largely turns on threshold exceptional-ability evidentiary criteria (institution of learning, ten years experience) rather than fresh Dhanasar prong analysis, with only cursory reference to national importance articles and a rejected general claim that AAO 'has not implemented the right policy.'
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. 103.5
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of O-S-G-
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