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 work full-time as a legal analyst/foreign legal consultant assisting U.S. businesses with cross-border trade with Brazil, but in response to an RFE he instead described starting and operating an HVACR installation and maintenance company in Florida while also offering some business/legal consulting services.
Field: legal/business consulting for cross-border trade with Brazil; later HVACR entrepreneurship · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the proposed endeavor involves a wide variety of services and no apparent intention to narrow the Petitioner's focus to a specific proposed endeavor.”
“we conclude the Petitioner has not identified a specific or consistent proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“Because the Petitioner has not provided consistent information regarding his proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that he meets either the first or second prong or that he has established eligibility for a national interest waiver.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“none of these documents explain what the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is; instead, they focus on his eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner presented a new set of facts in his RFE response that were not articulated at the time of filing the petition”
AAO decision text
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
The dismissal turned on a material-change/consistency issue rather than a conventional failure of a single Dhanasar prong: the Petitioner switched his proposed endeavor from full-time legal analyst work to operating an HVACR company after the RFE, which the AAO treated as an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi, precluding findings on prongs 1 and 2 and causing the AAO to decline reaching prong 3 entirely.
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. 103.2(b)(8)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- Section 291 of the Act
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution