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 manage and establish a barbershop and barber training school in the United States, offering hair and grooming services and training courses for prospective barbers.
Field: personal grooming / barbering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish EB-2 eligibility as an advanced degree professional because experience letters were not from employers or lacked specific duty descriptions sufficient to show five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience; also failed exceptional ability classification, meeting only one of six required criteria (the degree criterion), with letters found conclusory and an identity card found not to constitute a license/certification.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not contain adequate evidence to identify any positive economic impact rising to a level of national importance from the Petitioner's endeavor”
“the proposed endeavor's aim to "promot[e] skilled, well-trained barbers" does not elevate it to a level of national importance”
“It is unclear from the letters in the record how the establishment of an independent barbershop and training school would have a significant impact on the field of entrepreneurship beyond the barbershop and training school's immediate sphere of influence”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the record does not reflect how the Petitioner's prior activities as described in the recommendation letters is either a similar effort as that of their proposed endeavor or how it constitutes a record of success”
“the recommendation letters the Petitioner submitted are not material, relevant, or probative evidence in the record of interest or support in the endeavor the Petitioner proposed”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established · dispositive
“The record does not contain sufficient evidence of factors like the impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit to the U.S. of a petitioner's contributions, the urgency of a petitioner's contributions to the national interest, the capacity for job creation, and any adverse effects on U.S. workers”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter writer did not specify and the record does not reflect what the Petitioner did”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“these letters were not written by current or former employers”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record does not adequately support the Petitioner's statement in their business plan”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record does not evidence how completion of the workshop or courses...represent achievements and significant contributions”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
- Urgency not established · p3 — no reason shown why the benefit cannot wait for labour certification
Notable
AAO found categorical ineligibility for EB-2 classification (both advanced degree and exceptional ability routes) as an independent dispositive ground alongside failure of all three Dhanasar prongs, expressly stating each reason independently required dismissal. Applied Dhanasar's teaching analogy to barber training, finding the training's benefit constrained to those directly trained, similar to a teacher's students.
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(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of Y-B-
- 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