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 Brazilian hairdresser and salon owner, proposed to establish and operate hair salons in Florida and New York.
Field: hairdressing/beauty industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner established only 2 of 6 exceptional-ability criteria (10 years' experience; license), failing to meet the required three, so no final merits determination or NIW analysis was reached.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the record did not show that they were received from a 'qualifying institution of learning.'”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- certification membership · credited
- certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner still has not established the requirements for membership in the association.”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the accountant letter is not sufficiently clear to establish that the amounts stated in the letter reflect the amount of the Petitioner's personal earnings”
AAO decision text
All 8 evidence items
- awards · discounted
“the Petitioner did not submit evidence to establish the significance of this award, information about the pool of contestants for this award”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the support letters...similarly do not establish that the Petitioner has been recognized for achievements or significant contributions to the industry.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the support letters, while not without weight, could not serve as the sole basis for establishing this criterion.”
AAO decision text
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
This decision never reaches the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs at all; the appeal is dismissed solely because the Petitioner failed to establish the threshold EB-2 'exceptional ability' classification (meeting only 2 of the required 3 regulatory criteria). The AAO expressly 'reserve[s] our opinion regarding whether the Petitioner has satisfied any of the three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework,' citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach unnecessary issues.
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)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- 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