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.
Petitioner, an attorney, initially proposed building a legal career as a legal/tax expert in sustainable investment and establishing a private equity firm to attract U.S. investment in renewable energy in developing countries, but later shifted to owning a biogas-digester distribution business in East Africa and operating a community savings bank.
Field: law / sustainable finance and banking · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner's response to the RFE constituted a wholesale change of their proposed endeavor.”
“The Petitioner's materially significant transformation of their proposed endeavors rendered their proposals ill-defined and amorphous.”
“A petitioner must identify the specific endeavor they propose to undertake.”
“it is not possible to determine the substantial merit and national importance of an endeavor when a Petitioner cannot consistently articulate the nature of the endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner's response to the RFE constituted a wholesale change of their proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
- resume experience · ignored
- degree · ignored
- media · ignored
Where this case turned
- 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 found the Petitioner advanced four materially different endeavors over the course of proceedings (legal/private equity, biogas distribution, community banking), and held Dhanasar's framework cannot be applied where the endeavor itself keeps changing, citing Matter of Katigbak and Matter of Izummi against material amendment of petitions. A footnote also addresses a procedural mix-up involving a mistaken second-RFE notice and a late change-of-address filing, which the AAO deemed harmless given the merits outcome.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
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