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, a veterinarian, initially proposed to provide animal health care and public-health-related veterinary work in the U.S., and later, in response to an RFE, submitted a business plan for a food-safety and sanitary inspection company she would own and lead as CEO.
Field: veterinary medicine / food safety inspection · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO found the diploma/transcripts sufficient to show a foreign equivalent bachelor's degree, but identified discrepancies among employment letters, contracts, and the ETA 750B regarding dates and hours worked that suggest willful material misrepresentation about her five years of progressive experience; remanded for the Director to issue a NOID and reassess eligibility.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“The Petitioner initially presented a broad range of activities that she intended to pursue in the United States”
“a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner must resolve these discrepancies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements”
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 withdrew the Director's favorable degree-equivalency reasoning as legally flawed but simultaneously identified unaddressed discrepancies suggesting willful material misrepresentation of work experience, remanding for a NOID rather than deciding eligibility. AAO also corrected the Director for conflating prong-2 factors (sales projections, third-party interest) with the prong-1 national importance inquiry, and for imposing an extra-regulatory continuity requirement on the proposed endeavor.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Remand driven by two errors: unresolved material misrepresentations in EB-2 employment evidence (overlapping dates, hour discrepancies) and the Director's conflation of Dhanasar prongs 1 and 2, plus unaddressed question of an impermissible material change via the post-filing business plan.
Ensure employment letters, contracts, and ETA-750B are internally consistent before filing; do not substitute a new endeavor post-filing, and keep prong-1 argument strictly on national importance, not feasibility metrics.
vague
public_health · economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic
mixed
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