dismissedNOV222024_05B52032024-11-22 · 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, a cosmetologist, proposed to work as an independent contractor and open a beauty salon in New York offering advanced skincare treatments, aesthetic enhancements, and botox services.
Field: cosmetology / skincare and beauty salon services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong”
“the issue here is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“she did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
“she has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and its clientele to impact her field”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not establish employment of workers at a demonstrated rate of pay having substantial positive effects”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands separate and apart from her education, skills, and job experience”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the issue here is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
1,312coded 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 explicitly declined to address exceptional ability or prong 2 (well-positioned) since Director found those satisfied and prong 1 was dispositive; also declined to reach prong 3.
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 E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- 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