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, an operations/logistics manager, initially stated he sought employment in supply chain management, but later described plans to provide independent consulting services and start his own LLC offering supply-chain and logistics solutions to the dairy and agricultural industries.
Field: supply chain / logistics management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director did not address advanced-degree eligibility; AAO remands for the Director to determine whether the Petitioner has the required five years of progressive experience for the advanced-degree equivalency and to complete the exceptional-ability final merits determination.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“we note, for example, that the Petitioner made no mention of starting his own consulting company in the original petition and, in fact, specifically stated that he would be "seek[ing] employment."”
“The Director should also consider whether the Petitioner provided consistent information to determine what the proposed endeavor actually is in order to accurately analyze it under the first and second prongs of the Dhanasar analysis.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“The Director should also consider whether the Petitioner provided consistent information to determine what the proposed endeavor actually is in order to accurately analyze it under the first and second prongs of the Dhanasar analysis.”
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 - resume experience · discounted
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Endeavor too vague · p2 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
Unusual procedural posture: rather than affirming or reversing, the AAO withdrew the Director's denial and remanded for the Director to first resolve inconsistencies between the Petitioner's original 'seeking employment' claim and later 'starting own consulting business' claim before conducting a full Dhanasar analysis; AAO expressly agreed eligibility was not established but declined to make that finding itself.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
AAO found the Director failed to resolve whether NOID response materially changed the proposed endeavor (from seeking employment to starting own consulting company) and did not address advanced-degree professional eligibility, requiring remand for proper analysis.
Define the proposed endeavor consistently and completely at filing; NOID responses cannot introduce a materially different endeavor (e.g., new business) not disclosed initially.
vague
mixed
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