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 initially proposed to continue working as a marketing manager, but in response to an RFE stated she instead intended to develop and expand her own company and serve as its CEO.
Field: marketing management / broadcasting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew the Director's finding that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, citing deficiencies in the academic transcript (missing dates and required secretary signature) and the credential evaluator's failure to review employment letters establishing progressive experience. AAO also withdrew the finding that she met the exceptional-ability membership criterion (8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E)) because she failed to show the union affiliation constituted membership in a professional association. Matter remanded for Director to redetermine EB-2 eligibility.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“we cannot conclude that this is 'an official academic record' as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B)”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“he does not claim to have reviewed any employment letters to establish the Petitioner's work history or experience”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“she did not, however, provide any supporting evidence... which establishes that her affiliation with the union qualifies as membership in a professional association”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner also provided a 'Business Plan' dated August 21, 2021, almost two years after her initial filing date”
AAO decision text
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO flagged that the Petitioner materially changed her proposed endeavor between initial filing (marketing manager employee) and RFE response (founder/CEO of her own company), citing Izummi and Katigbak on impermissible material changes, and remanded for the Director to determine whether this constituted a new endeavor rather than mere clarification. The decision is unusual in that it remands on threshold eligibility and endeavor-identification grounds without reaching any Dhanasar prong on the merits.
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.
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Threshold EB-2 eligibility unresolved (deficient/unsigned transcript, unproven degree equivalency, unsupported professional-association membership) plus a materially inconsistent endeavor description (marketing manager vs. new CEO plan) required remand rather than a merits ruling.
Submit complete, signed academic records and consistent professional-association evidence, and keep the proposed endeavor identical from filing through RFE response—material changes require a new petition.
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