The petitioner, a computer software engineer, initially proposed to seek employment as a backend or full-stack developer among the many available vacancies in the American software market; after filing he asserted he had instead co-founded his own Wyoming-based SaaS startup.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he indicated that he would seek employment among existing position vacancies at an existing company”

“appears to benefit the Petitioner, whichever unspecified employer(s) with position vacancies that may hire him”

“presents a new set of material facts that cannot-and do not-establish eligibility”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “casts substantial doubt on the extent to which the letter writer may be familiar with all applicable immigration laws”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “presents a new set of material facts that cannot-and do not-establish eligibility”

  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
• Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed

Notable

AAO treats the petitioner's post-filing formation of his own company as an impermissible 'new set of material facts' under Katigbak/Izummi rather than evidence of progress, and further discounts a supporting opinion letter as unreliable because it failed to acknowledge this timing problem, reasoning that the omission casts doubt on the letter-writer's familiarity with immigration law and impartiality. The Director's exceptional-ability finding and the advanced-degree alternative were left entirely unaddressed since the appeal was resolved on prong 1 alone.

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. 103.3
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Ho
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• Matter of L-A-C-

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