dismissedMAY082025_06B52032025-05-08 · appeal · Texas 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 proposed to establish an aesthetic clinic in California offering non-surgical treatments, while also training and developing professionals in the aesthetics field.

Field: aesthetic medicine / biomedical aesthetics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO disagreed with SCOPS finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; her employment letter showed only 4 years 5 months, not the required 5 years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience. Exceptional ability claim was reserved without decision since the NIW itself failed.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”

“the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her future clients to impact the field of aesthetics, the economy, or U.S. societal welfare more broadly”

“the national shortage of aesthetic professionals is not, in and of itself: sufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor.”

“merely working in an important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

“we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner provided an employment letter verifying that she worked 44 hours a week...which is only four years and five months.”
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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

2,501coded 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 overturned SCOPS's favorable threshold finding sua sponte, determining the Petitioner did not qualify as an advanced degree professional (insufficient progressive experience), then reserved the exceptional-ability question and all prongs beyond prong 1 since the NIW failed on national importance grounds alone.

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)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
Flores v. Garland
Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show the clinic's impact would extend beyond her own clients to affect the aesthetics field, economy, or societal welfare at a national scale.

Transferable lesson

Support national-importance claims with concrete evidence of the endeavor's actual scale/reach (e.g., regional/national economic data), not general industry importance or shortage assertions.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_growth_generic · geographic_or_shortage_area · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer