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, an entrepreneur/chef, sought to work in the restaurant and culinary field in the United States, claiming exceptional ability in that occupation.
Field: culinary/restaurant industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii), not meeting at least three of the six regulatory criteria (employment letters, salary, professional membership, recognition/contributions); AAO withdrew Director's favorable findings on two criteria.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“The plain language of the regulation, however, requires letter(s) which are from current or former employer(s).”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established how the submission of salary information for the occupation of chef and his earnings as an administrator are sufficient”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“he did not, however, provide supporting evidence, such as the membership requirements or by-laws, which establishes that any of the organizations are a professional association”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“Without additional evidence, such as objective information regarding the significance of the requirements to receive these certificates and awards”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the evidence establishes that the Petitioner is well-respected and a contributing member of his community”
AAO decision text
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
This decision concerns the exceptional-ability threshold classification only (not the NIW prongs); the AAO withdrew the Director's favorable findings on two of the six regulatory criteria and never reached the Dhanasar NIW analysis because the threshold EB-2 classification was not met. The AAO noted each threshold failure was an independent and alternate basis for dismissal.
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)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
- Matter of R-A-M-
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