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 a barbershop and barber school business in which he would work as manager, barber, and barber instructor.
Field: barbering / personal care services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Prior appellate decision found the petitioner did not meet any of the six exceptional-ability evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii); this motion did not disturb that finding.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“they do not speak specifically to the Petitioner's endeavor he proposes to undertake and how the proposed endeavor may have national or even global implications within a particular field”
“the record lacked evidence to demonstrate his endeavor would provide a broad innovation to the personal care and barber field”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“they do not speak specifically to the Petitioner's endeavor he proposes to undertake”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner submits an almost identical brief to the one submitted with the previous combined motion”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
Notable
This is the third combined motion to reopen/reconsider in the same proceeding; AAO emphasizes the limited scope of motion review under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1) and repeatedly notes the petitioner merely resubmitted a nearly identical brief without addressing the immediately prior decision, citing Matter of O-S-G- for the principle that a motion to reconsider cannot simply re-argue the same brief.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 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