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 as a chief executive providing business management services to U.S. companies in telecommunications and import/export industries, then later shifted to proposing to build and expand a domestic animal services company he founded, offering mobile pet care services with plans to franchise.
Field: telecommunications/import-export management; domestic animal services business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The record reflects that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his business and future clientele to impact the animal care services industry or U.S. economy more broadly”
“the business plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized”
“the general industry reports and article submitted do not refer to the Petitioner, the company he founded, or the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake”
“the Petitioner has not provided a foundation or corroborating details to support the growth projections he provided in his business plan”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the general industry reports and article submitted do not refer to the Petitioner, the company he founded, or the specific endeavor”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“he relies primarily upon the evidence and arguments previously submitted”
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
Notable
The AAO found that the Petitioner materially changed his proposed endeavor between filing and the RFE response, shifting from a telecommunications/import-export chief executive role to a domestic animal services company he founded, citing Matter of Izummi and Matter of Katigbak for the principle that eligibility must be established as of the filing date and that material changes require a new petition. The AAO nonetheless proceeded to analyze the merits of the new endeavor in the alternative and found it also failed prong 1.
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
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- 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