dismissedSEP262023_01B52032023-09-26 · appeal · 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 continue growing her high-end bakery specializing in custom cakes and sweets in Florida, aiming to support U.S. and foreign companies in the fast-growing cake market segment.
Field: culinary arts (bakery/custom cakes) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not established how her independent bakery stands to sufficiently extend beyond her customers to impact the culinary arts industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be realized”
“none of them offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend beyond her customers.”
“the expert opinion letter is very general, significantly focuses on the importance of the overall food service industry and the impact immigrants play in the U.S. economy, and does not address the Petitioner's five-year business plan”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters are not probative of the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“much of the content of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,589coded 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 →
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)
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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