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 civil engineer, initially proposed to work within a U.S. company, but later introduced a business plan to establish and direct his own construction company, which the AAO found constituted a material change to the originally proposed endeavor.
Field: civil engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor had prospective national importance as required by prong one”
“Petitioner's plans to establish and direct a new company formed after the filing date of his petition cannot retroactively establish eligibility.”
“this changed the fundamental character of the endeavor - the Petitioner initially proposed to work as a civil engineer within a U.S. company and did not mention starting a company, acting a director, or performing duties tied to the direction of a company.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“Petitioner's plans to establish and direct a new company formed after the filing date of his petition cannot retroactively establish eligibility.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the evidence cited by the Petitioner was not included within the scope of the original proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
The Petitioner cited a 1995 adjudication letter and Federal Register commentary on Supplement J requirements to argue that switching endeavors within a related field should be permissible; the AAO rejected both as inapposite and noted in a footnote that some cited language could not be located in the final rule as quoted.
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. 103.5(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)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Coelho
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner materially changed the proposed endeavor after filing (from employee civil engineer to founding/directing a construction company), and new evidence/arguments on motion could not retroactively cure that change or show legal error.
Define the final, complete endeavor at filing; post-filing pivots (e.g., forming a new company) will be treated as a disqualifying material change, not a permissible expansion.
vague
other
person_focused
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