NIW Bearings
dismissedNOV152023_01B52032023-11-15 · appeal · Nebraska 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, a chef and self-described 'BBQ master' from Brazil, proposed to work in the U.S. as a chef/owner of a barbeque restaurant while also offering catering, restaurant consulting, academic courses, cooking classes, and BBQ judge/competitor training.

Field: culinary arts / gastronomy (chef, BBQ) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has submitted a proposed endeavor of sizeable scope, setting forth purported wide-ranging impacts spreading through various industries, thereby leaving its potential prospective impact uncertain”
“it would appear difficult for one individual, regardless of skill and ability, to make a national impact in all these categories as asserted by the Petitioner”
“it is unclear how the scale of the Petitioner's proposed business would have a national impact on an industry the Petitioner states is growing rapidly”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond the clientele of his proposed barbeque restaurant”
“the two expert opinions lack support for their conclusions”
“the Petitioner here only vaguely asserts that the proposed endeavor would have an impact the STEM field related gastronomy”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “it is unclear how the scale of the Petitioner's proposed business would have a national impact”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the two expert opinions lack support for their conclusions”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “does not sufficiently establish the benefits to the regional or national economy that would result from his undertaking”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “he has not properly explained or documented how his proposed endeavor would have an impact on each of these categories or fields on a national scale”
    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
  • 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
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 rejected the Director's finding of a 'material change' in the endeavor between the initial petition and RFE response, finding it merely an expansion of the original business plan rather than a disqualifying material change, though this did not affect the ultimate dismissal on national importance grounds.

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.

  • Matter of Caron Int'l
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer