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 serve as CEO of his own Brazilian restaurant chain in Florida, planning to open five locations over ten years, while also consulting for other restaurants on cost and quality management.
Field: restaurant industry / business administration and consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner's bachelor's-equivalent degree plus over five years of progressive experience qualified him for EB-2 classification.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his organization and customers to impact the restaurant industry or U.S. economy more broadly”
“The Petitioner's plan appears to contain conflicting information regarding the economic impacts of his proposed endeavor, yet he does not attempt to resolve or explain them”
“his plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for either of these revenue or job creation projections, nor does it adequately explain how the projections will be realized”
“merely working in an important industry or having an important profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“his plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for either of these revenue or job creation projections, nor does it adequately explain how the projections will be realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters would be similarly relevant to Dhanasar's second, not first, prong”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“his work experience does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under Dhanasar's first prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“they do not specifically discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or explain how his endeavor would have broader implications”
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
- 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
The AAO noted the Petitioner's business plan contained internally conflicting economic-impact figures (from a personal projection versus a RIMS II regional model) that he never reconciled, undermining his national-importance claim.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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