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 mechanical engineer, proposed to found a company offering IT and blockchain project management consultancy, though his filing statement, initial business plan (focused on a blockchain-based medical records platform called DEMI), and revised RFE business plan (focused on IT/scrum master consultancy for SMEs) described substantively different endeavors.
Field: mechanical engineering / IT project management consultancy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed the Director's final merits determination on exceptional ability was inadequately explained, but declined to resolve this issue given dispositive prong 1 findings.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the substantial merit and the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong”
“the Petitioner has submitted insufficient and inconsistent evidence regarding the substantive nature of his proposed endeavor”
“he has not demonstrated its substantive nature”
“the statements and the evidence the Petitioner has offered call into question what work he would actually perform through the endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“conflicting information, and those amendments, were so material and considerable that we will not decide which version of each that we should evaluate”
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
AAO dismissed on two independent alternative bases: (1) unresolved material inconsistencies between the Petitioner's initial statement, initial business plan, and a substantively revised business plan submitted in response to the RFE (treated as an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi/Katigbak), and (2) failure to establish the substantive nature of the endeavor as a result. Notably, the AAO agreed with the Petitioner that the Director's exceptional-ability final merits determination was inadequately explained, but declined to resolve threshold eligibility given the dispositive prong 1 defects.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers