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, proposed to work as an executive chef for an Italian restaurant and run its newly formed catering business, while also serving as executive chef for a second catering company, aiming to blend Italian, Mediterranean, and American culinary traditions.
Field: culinary arts / chef · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The AAO agreed the Director committed several procedural errors in evaluating exceptional-ability eligibility but declined to remand because the petition failed on the NIW prong-one analysis regardless.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the primary shortcoming being that she has not established the potential prospective impact of her work more broadly to the culinary arts field”
“Simply because the Petitioner operates in an industry that was formerly designated to include essential workers during a pandemic does not translate to those same workers holding a similar level of national importance”
“simply preparing food for individuals frequenting establishments where she works, and imparting knowledge to individual food preparers is limited within her industry rather than being broad”
“neither adequately explains the impact the Petitioner's endeavor will have on the field as a whole”
“Ultimately, the Petitioner focuses on the occupation instead of her proposed endeavor being of national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“we are not persuaded by the opinion letters the Petitioner refers to in the appeal brief”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the appeal brief attributes direct quotes from this second government memorandum that do not exist in the document”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO faulted the petitioner for quoting a 2023 government dietary-guidelines memorandum with fabricated/misattributed language not found in the actual document, and separately noted her post-COVID essential-worker argument was undercut by the WHO's 2023 declaration ending the global health emergency.
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)(1)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of Y-B-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod