dismissedOCT012024_08B52032024-10-01 · combined · Texas 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 sought to open and operate a Brazilian steakhouse-style restaurant in Florida.

Field: restaurant industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Petitioner had already established before the Director that he qualifies as an advanced degree professional, so he was not additionally required to show exceptional ability; AAO rejected his motion argument on this point.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we find that these submissions discuss the restaurant industry as a whole and do not specifically address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”

“we will not disturb our previous finding that the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor has broader implications in his industry, and therefore has not established that his endeavor is of national importance under the first Dhanasar prong.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

motion resubmission · discounted
“these submissions discuss the restaurant industry as a whole and do not specifically address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
other · ignored
“statements in a brief, motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight.”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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

2,179coded 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

Petitioner alleged the prior AAO appeal decision was motivated by 'obvious bias against' him; AAO rejected this as an unsupported assertion in a brief, citing Matter of S-M-. Footnote clarifies that because Petitioner already qualified as an advanced degree professional, he was not required to separately establish exceptional ability, rejecting a motion argument to the contrary.

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)(1)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of Coelho
Matter of Katigbak

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer