dismissedJAN182024_02B52032024-01-18 · 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 proposed to operate a business producing and selling ready-to-eat frozen Brazilian dinners across the U.S., aiming to improve nutrition, food security, and create jobs.
Field: food industry / frozen meal production · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew the Director's favorable findings and concluded the Petitioner did not qualify as an advanced degree professional (no single foreign equivalent degree plus experience) nor as an individual of exceptional ability (met none of the six regulatory criteria).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“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 record does not link how the branding, introduction, and proliferation of products would broadly influence the food industry to the degree it increases GDP”
“the Petitioner does not identify where specifically the locus of employment for any new employees would be”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“none of these "major projects" was involved with the production of frozen food, which is the crux of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
“it is not clear from the record that the Petitioner has made any progress towards following their plan and achieving their proposed endeavor”
“other than the general encouragement one would expect from acquaintances when embarking on a business project, the letters do not adequately compose a body of evidence”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established
“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”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“The equivalency evaluation is not probative to establish the Petitioner's categorical eligibility for classification”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letters purporting to support the Petitioner's work experience in the occupation are not sufficient material, relevant, or probative evidence”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the certificates are not persuasive to demonstrate the Petitioner's licensure or certification to perform a particular profession or occupation”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not adequately compose a body of evidence from which we could determine if the authors are users, customers, investors or other relevant entities”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“these assertions are not supported by material, relevant, or probative evidence in the record”
AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
- awards · ignored
“While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one.”
AAO decision text - media · ignored
“While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- 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
2,501coded 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 took the unusual step of withdrawing the Director's favorable findings on both EB-2 threshold classification prongs (advanced degree and exceptional ability), finding the Petitioner categorically ineligible for EB-2 classification entirely, in addition to failing all three Dhanasar prongs -- multiple independent grounds for dismissal were expressly stated.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- 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