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, sought to continue working as a chef and entrepreneur operating his own restaurant, claiming exceptional ability in the culinary business sector.
Field: culinary arts / restaurant industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director never made an initial determination on exceptional ability (three-criteria test and final merits determination); AAO remanded for the Director to conduct this analysis rather than deciding it itself. AAO noted the Petitioner did not claim, and record did not establish, eligibility as an advanced degree professional, since chef/entrepreneur was not shown to be a 'profession' under the Act.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
- certification membership · discounted
- awards · discounted
- recommendation letter · discounted
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
Unusual procedural posture: AAO remands rather than affirming or reversing, criticizing the Director for failing to make an initial exceptional-ability determination and for internally inconsistent reasoning (RFE stated Petitioner was well-positioned under prong two, but the denial reversed this without explanation, which AAO agreed was 'indicative of an arbitrary assessment process'). AAO also notes in a footnote that chef/entrepreneur was not shown to be a 'profession' for advanced-degree purposes.
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)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Flores v. Garland
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director never determined the underlying EB-2 classification (exceptional ability) and gave conclusory, unexplained findings on all three Dhanasar prongs, precluding meaningful appellate review; case remanded for proper analysis.
Petitioners must first secure a clear underlying EB-2 classification finding and ensure adjudicators (and their own submissions) squarely address each Dhanasar prong with specific evidentiary analysis, not conclusory labels.
vague
economic_growth_generic · field_advancement
mixed
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