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 entrepreneur, sought to provide nutrition and food/nutrition consulting services intended to benefit clientele, small-to-medium businesses' operational acumen, and the U.S. healthcare system and economy.
Field: nutrition/food consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Credential evaluation found only equivalent to three and one-half years of bachelor's coursework, not a full U.S. bachelor's degree, and relied improperly on the 'three-for-one' rule not applicable outside H visas. Petitioner also failed to show five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience, as only one recommendation letter was from a former employer and described training predating her 2018 degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“they focus on the importance of the field and not the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, sector, or profession in which the individual will work”
“the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support these claims of her business' substantial economic benefits to the United States”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the recommended U.S. equivalency is 'completion of at least three and one-half years of course work' toward a four-year bachelor's degree program”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“only one of the letters was from a former employer and although the letter described the Petitioner's training, it was prior to her obtaining her degree in 2018”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“they focus on the importance of the field and not the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established eligibility”
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
Notable
The AAO rejected the credential evaluator's reliance on the 'three-for-one' rule, clarifying that this H-visa-specific rule does not apply to immigrant petition degree equivalency determinations under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)/(k)(2). The threshold EB-2 failure alone was stated to render the petition 'not approvable,' though the AAO also separately addressed and rejected the national importance arguments on motion.
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. 103.5(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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Coelho
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