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 establish a Florida business offering nutrition and gastronomy consulting services to institutions such as hospitals, restaurants, and hotels, while also operating a restaurant delivering healthy food options.
Field: culinary arts / nutrition and gastronomy consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO found the Director's finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional unsupported: her Brazilian bacharela degree was not equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree (only 3.5 years of coursework per credential evaluation and EDGE), and she lacked five years of post-degree progressive experience since only one recommendation letter was from a former employer and it described pre-degree internship training.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not demonstrate that the endeavor has the potential to result in any meaningful impact on the health of the U.S. population in general”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
“these claims are not supported by the evidence in the record”
“the Petitioner has not offered a sufficiently direct connection between her proposed endeavor and any demonstrable economic or societal welfare effects”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“The record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has completed a four- or five-year degree”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“only one of these letters of recommendation is from a former employer”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“this letter describes the Petitioner's training during an internship that was completed prior to the Petitioner obtaining her degree”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the business plan did not demonstrate that the restaurant would employ a significant population of workers”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the articles and reports in the record did not demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
AAO decision text
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
Notable
AAO withdrew the Director's threshold finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced-degree professional (degree equivalency and experience deficiencies), yet still proceeded to substantively analyze the NIW prongs rather than treating the threshold failure as dispositive. AAO also withdrew the Director's finding on substantial merit (Dhanasar prong 1, first half) but affirmed the national importance finding, rejecting Petitioner's argument that the Director improperly relied on the vacated NYSDOT framework.
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)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- 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