dismissedJAN032024_02B52032024-01-03 · appeal · Nebraska Service Center
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 planned to work as a CEO/entrepreneur by developing and expanding her own spa services company based in Colorado, offering a mix of eastern herbal treatments and western relaxation methods.
Field: spa and beauty services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the value of immigrant entrepreneurship or the Petitioner's general occupation; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“We are not persuaded by the argument that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of workers in her field.”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”
“she did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”
“she has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and its clientele to impact her field, the spa industry, the U.S. economy, or U.S. societal welfare more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“she did not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”
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
- 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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
1,312coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, treating the prong 1 failure as an independent and alternate basis for dismissal. The Director had found substantial merit satisfied but national importance not established; AAO agreed only as to national importance, not disputing substantial merit.
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.
- 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