A self-employed software developer sought to run his own IT consulting company implementing agile methodologies and optimizing business processes for U.S. companies, later attempting to expand the description on motion to include an AI-powered cryptocurrency investment-advisory platform.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we agree with the Director that the Petitioner's discussion of cryptocurrency and financial advice amounts to a material change to the proposed endeavor”

“Individually tailored services help serve specific needs of clients, but by nature, they do not represent broadly applicable measures that a wide range of companies can readily adopt”

“A limited local impact does not meet this burden”

“The business plan containing those projections, however, did not cite any sources for the figures provided.”

“Speculation about "ripple effects" does not meet this burden.”

“The Petitioner does not elaborate as to how his proposed endeavor would involve "broad and significant innovations."”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionedestablished

“if we were to accept the Petitioner's modifications to the proposed endeavor, we would also have to reconsider the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance that endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “we agree with the Director that the Petitioner's discussion of cryptocurrency and financial advice amounts to a material change to the proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · credited
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “The generalized guidance cited on motion does not broadly exempt STEM workers from the job offer/labor certification requirement.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “The Petitioner did not explain how the location of his company's clients would affect his own company's creation of jobs in economically depressed areas.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed

Notable

The appeal reviewed the Director's dismissal of a combined motion to reopen and reconsider rather than the underlying denial itself; the AAO applied Matter of Izummi's material-change doctrine to reject the Petitioner's attempt, on RFE response and motion, to recharacterize his IT consulting endeavor as a cryptocurrency investment-advisory platform, and separately rejected reliance on generalized STEM policy-manual language as insufficient to show endeavor-specific government interest.

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. 103.3
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Coelho
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of L-A-C-

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