The Petitioner proposed to teach Portuguese language and promote Brazilian culture through music and storytelling, and later claimed to operate a related company, though the AAO found this a materially changed endeavor from his initial filing.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we did not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endJayor of operatjng!”

“he has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”

“he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supp011ing the need for these additional employees.”

“The issue here, however, is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”

“The letter from Dr. T-Z- does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”

“he has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond the participants in his education programs to impact his field, societal welfare, or the U.S. economy more broadly”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not point to specific examples in our decision where we applied a stricter standard of proof”

  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
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact

Notable

This is a motion to reconsider a prior AAO appellate dismissal; the AAO reiterates that a business plan/company developed and a proposed endeavor (operating a company) raised after filing constitutes an impermissible 'materially changed proposed endeavor' under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1),(12) and Matter of Izummi/Bardouille, and cannot be considered. The Petitioner's attempt to analogize to Dhanasar's expert letters was distinguished on the basis that the submitted letter addressed field-wide importance rather than the specific 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. 103.2(b)(12)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5
• Matter of Bardouille
• Matter of Izummi

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, an assistant professor of Arabic, proposed to continue teaching Levantine-Modern Standard Arabic to U.S.
• The Petitioner, a secondary school teacher, proposed to develop and implement an open educational resource program to ex
• The Petitioner proposed to establish a consulting company in Missouri to design and implement a nationally adaptable tea
• The Petitioner, an arts, drama, and music teacher and entrepreneur, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of excep
• The petitioner, a mathematics teacher with 17 years of experience, proposed to operate a company offering online math tu