dismissedAPR052023_05B52032023-04-05 · 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, a software developer, initially proposed to work as a software developer/engineer for a U.S. company, and later in an RFE response attempted to change his endeavor to founding and leading his own startup company.
Field: software development/engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Here, the Petitioner did not initially provide a detailed proposed endeavor.”
“He stated that he wished to "make [himself] available for future work" in his cover letter, but also stated in his "personal plan" that his intention was to "work in a large multinational company."”
“Notably, while the Petitioner submitted evidence about the shortage of professionals in the IT industry, he did not explain how his employment would prospectively have potentially broader implications for the industry or field.”
“Based upon his brief description of the proposed endeavor, there is no indication that it would have potential impacts beyond his employer and their clients.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
- other · discounted
“he did not explain how his employment would prospectively have potentially broader implications for the industry or field”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- 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
746coded 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
The Petitioner attempted to change his proposed endeavor from employment as a software engineer to founding/leading his own startup company in response to the RFE; the Director and AAO treated this as an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi and declined to consider the new endeavor, instead analyzing only the original vague endeavor under prong 1.
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 Izummi
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod