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 chef and food industry manager, proposed to continue using her culinary expertise to work as a food industry management consultant in the United States.
Field: food industry management / culinary arts · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish at least three of six exceptional-ability criteria (experience, license/certification, salary, membership, recognition); this failure was dispositive, so the NIW prongs were reserved.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“The evidence does not demonstrate that the use of the Petitioner's experience wi 11 have substantial positive economic effects that will reach beyond benefitting her own company and clients or have broader implications within the field of restaurant management.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate national interest factors such as the impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit of her prospective contributions to the United States, an urgent national interest in her contributions, the potential creation of jobs, or that her self-employment does not adversely affect U.S. workers.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the letter does not document whether the experience was full- or part-time.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner did not provide evidence that she has a license to practice or certification for her profession.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“The evidence does not demonstrate that the use of the Petitioner's experience wi 11 have substantial positive economic effects that will reach beyond benefitting her own company and clients.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the salary data is for a different occupation than the occupation for which the Petitioner was compensated”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Urgency not established · p3 — no reason shown why the benefit cannot wait for labour certification
- U.S. worker availability · p3 — the impracticality of a labour-market test was asserted, not established
Notable
The appeal was dismissed solely on failure to establish threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability eligibility (missing certified translations, inconsistent experience dates, no license/certification evidence, mismatched salary survey). The AAO formally reserved the Dhanasar NIW prongs as unnecessary to the outcome but included a footnote alternative analysis finding the petitioner would have failed all three prongs anyway, based on a business plan submitted for the first time on appeal projecting job creation and profit.
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. 103.2(b)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution