The Petitioner, a supply chain manager, initially proposed to provide supply chain management and logistics consulting services to U.S. companies, including regarding trade with Brazil, but later shifted to describe an endeavor of importing and manufacturing vegan/organic cosmetic products through her own newly formed company.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Here, the nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is unclear.”

“We conclude that her initial filing and the RFE response contained differing jobs 3 and insufficiently detailed statements concerning her proposed future work.”

“Some of these claimed benefits are employer-specific (such as impact on costs and profit margins); others lack sufficient explanation.”

“Skills and experience do not take on national importance merely because they are potentially useful to prospective employers.”

“These assertions are not persuasive because the collective impact of logistics and supply chain management does not impute national importance to the activities of any one particular supply chain manager.”

“The business plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized.”

“she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of either endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “The business plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized.”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “it does not demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her undertaking would reach the level of substantial positive economic effects”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “General statistics about Brazilian trade do not suffice in this regard, because this information does not establish the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• 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
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor

Notable

The AAO emphasized a material-change-of-endeavor problem: the Petitioner's RFE response and appeal described a substantively different endeavor (cosmetic import/manufacturing entrepreneurship) from her initial filing (supply chain manager consulting), and the AAO invoked Izummi/Katigbak to hold that eligibility must be shown as of the filing date and that a petitioner cannot retroactively alter the endeavor. The business plan also contradictorily identified the Petitioner as an 'IT Security and Network expert.'

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)
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• Poursina v. USCIS

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