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, proposed to establish a beauty salon in the United States and work as a hairdresser instructor.
Field: cosmetology/barbering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“In the decision, the Director analyzed the substantial merit of a proposed endeavor involving mechanical engineering. This is not the Petitioner's endeavor.”
“The reach of such an endeavor appears limited to the Petitioner's clients and students.”
“Because the Director's decision contained inaccurate information and conclusory analysis, we are withdrawing the determination”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“The Director did not identify and analyze what evidence in the record specifically made the Petitioner ill prepared to advance the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“the decision should address the Petitioner's arguments and evidence, and explain the relative decisional weight given to each balancing factor.”
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
Unusual remand: the AAO did not affirm the Director's denial on the merits of any Dhanasar prong. Instead, it found the Director's decision factually and analytically deficient — the Director apparently analyzed a mechanical-engineering endeavor that was not the Petitioner's, misquoted the RFE, and gave conclusory reasoning on prongs 2 and 3 — and remanded for a corrected decision rather than resolving eligibility itself.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
The Director's decision was procedurally defective: it analyzed the wrong endeavor (mechanical engineering instead of barbering/salon), misquoted the RFE, and gave conclusory, unexplained findings on prongs 1 and 2, requiring remand for accurate analysis rather than a merits ruling.
Ensure adjudicators (and petitioners' rebuttals) correctly identify the actual proposed endeavor; factual errors and conclusory reasoning by USCIS can themselves compel remand regardless of substantive merits.
vague
economic_job_creation · other
mixed
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