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 proposed to found and direct a school combining bodyboarding instruction with environmental education, later recharacterizing this on motion as work as an environmental engineer focused on coastal dune restoration and conservation.
Field: environmental engineering / coastal restoration and conservation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Prior appellate decision found the Petitioner qualifies for classification as an individual of exceptional ability; not at issue on this motion.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner had not "presented sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance."”
“the Petitioner had not shown his proposed endeavor "stands to sufficiently extend beyond his school and its participants to impact the field more broadly than his specific programs."”
“the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his environmental engineering projects to impact the field more broadly than his specific coastal restoration and conservation programs.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner had not shown his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his school and its participants”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“A petitioner may not make material changes to his petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The Petitioner attempted on motion to reconsider to materially re-characterize his proposed endeavor (from a bodyboarding/environmental school to environmental engineering/coastal restoration), which the AAO rejected as an improper material change under Matter of Izummi, and in any event found the recharacterized endeavor still failed the national importance prong.
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)(3)
- Matter of Izummi
- Poursina v. USCIS
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