remandedAPR062023_01B52032023-04-06 · 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 initially proposed to work as a Finance Director for U.S. energy (oil & gas) companies, but in response to an RFE described a different plan to create his own company offering finance and accounting consulting services to government and nonprofit entities.

Field: finance / energy industry (oil & gas) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director erroneously found exceptional ability was established, but AAO clarifies Petitioner instead qualifies as an advanced degree professional, satisfying the underlying EB-2 classification.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“The Director determined that the Petitioner did not sufficiently describe his proposed endeavor and issued a request for evidence (RFE).”

“A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”

“we agree with the ultimate conclusion that the Petitioner has not established that he qualifies for a national interest waiver”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking

1,581coded 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

AAO withdrew the denial not to grant relief but because the Director failed to address the Petitioner's RFE evidence and did not determine whether the RFE response constituted a material change to the proposed endeavor versus mere clarification; case remanded for Director to make that threshold determination before conducting a full Dhanasar analysis. AAO also corrected the Director's erroneous statement that Petitioner had established exceptional ability.

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. 103.2(b)(12)
8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(8)
8 C.F.R. 103.3
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Matter of Izummi
Matter of Katigbak
Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

AAO found Director failed to address RFE evidence (new business plan) and did not determine whether it clarified or materially changed the endeavor, requiring remand for proper threshold analysis.

Transferable lesson

Define the proposed endeavor consistently from filing onward; RFE responses must clarify, not materially change, the endeavor or risk remand/denial.

Endeavor framing

vague

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer