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 clinical research coordinator conducting and coordinating mental-health research and training other professionals, but in response to an RFE she recast her endeavor as consulting, business coaching, teaching, and expanding an AI/data-science company.
Field: clinical research / psychology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and the AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Notably, the Petitioner does not provide an explanation for the change in her specific proposed endeavor.”
“we are left to question how much time, if any, will be spent on the endeavor described in the initial filing”
“Because the Petitioner has not provided consistent information regarding her proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that she meets either the first or second prong”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“Because the Petitioner has not provided consistent information regarding her proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that she meets either the first or second prong, or that she has established eligibility for a national interest waiver.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner does not provide an explanation for the change in her specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
- degree · credited
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
- Material change of endeavor · p2 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
Notable
Unusual dispositive basis: the AAO did not primarily fault the merits of the endeavor but the Petitioner's material, unexplained change in the specific endeavor between the initial filing (clinical research coordinator/health research) and RFE response (consultant, business coach, AI entrepreneur), holding that inconsistent endeavor descriptions defeat both prongs 1 and 2, each an independent alternate basis for dismissal. A footnote also notes the record does not establish U.S. licensure required to practice as a 'psychologist.'
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp