The Petitioner proposed to continue conducting external configuration, life, and structural analysis for aircraft engines, later attempting to expand this to seismic and dynamic analysis of nuclear reactors.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner materially changed his description of the proposed endeavor”

“the record does not establish that some portion of the Petitioner's time spent on such analysis would have national importance”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”

“the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor, as described at the time of filing the petition, may have national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “we need not address the letter's references to nuclear power plants and nuclear energy because it cannot establish eligibility”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the information contained in the resume and letter submitted on motion do not present new facts”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “newly submitted evidence is beyond the scope of a motion to reconsider”

  AAO decision text
• other · ignored

  “we need not address the various documents pertaining to nuclear reactors and nuclear energy the Petitioner submits on motion”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed

Notable

AAO applies the Katigbak/Izummi 'material change' doctrine to reject a petitioner's attempt to reframe the proposed endeavor (from aircraft engine analysis to nuclear reactor work) on motion, holding that such a shift cannot establish eligibility regardless of merit. The decision also reaffirms a prior finding of misrepresentation and clarifies that such findings do not constitute inadmissibility determinations but may be considered in future admissibility proceedings.

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. 103.5
• Matter of Coelho
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• Matter of L-A-C-

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