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 safety engineer, initially proposed to fill a vacant safety engineer position for a U.S. employer, but later described pivoting to running an entrepreneurial consultancy offering business development, sales, and marketing advice, without maintaining a consistent, fixed description of the endeavor.
Field: safety engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The record does not support the Petitioner's assertion that the record depicts a single, evolving endeavor with no material changes.”
“The Petitioner has not provided a definitive and consistent description of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor that would allow for a meaningful analysis ofwhether that endeavor is one of substantial merit and/or national importance.”
“A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed to make an apparently deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”
“Working as an engineer for a single employer is not the same endeavor as starting and running a consulting business; the two endeavors overlap but involve different tasks and responsibilities.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner's plans to establish a company were presented after the filing date; as such, the amended endeavor cannot retroactively establish eligibility.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“On motion, the Petitioner asserts no new facts and submits no new evidence.”
AAO decision text
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
The Petitioner argued the AAO's prior dismissal violated the Fourth Amendment (and possibly meant the Fifth Amendment due process clause), but the AAO found the argument unsupported and unexplained. The motion to reopen was dismissed for lack of any new facts or evidence, and the motion to reconsider failed because the Petitioner could not show the prior decision misapplied law given the inconsistent, shifting description of the proposed endeavor across filing, RFE response, and appeal.
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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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