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, who initially proposed to work as a nutritionist for U.S. hospitals, companies, and institutions to improve patient recovery and wellbeing, later changed her plan to founding and running her own nutrition clinic while pursuing a doctorate to become a registered dietician nutritionist and certified wellness coach.
Field: nutrition/dietetics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude the RFE response presented a new set of facts regarding the proposed endeavor, which is material to eligibility for a national interest waiver.”
“A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed to make an apparently deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”
“we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“Because the Petitioner has not provided consistent information regarding her proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that she meets either the first or second prong, or that she has established eligibility for a national interest waiver.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“presented after the filing date cannot retroactively establish eligibility”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“her plan to pursue education credentials that would enable her to perform services...presented after the filing date”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
- Material change of endeavor · p2 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
Notable
The dismissal turned not on a typical merits shortfall but on the AAO's finding that the Petitioner materially changed her proposed endeavor between filing and the RFE response/appeal (from seeking nutritionist employment to opening her own clinic and pursuing a doctorate), invoking the filing-date eligibility rule from Izummi/Katigbak to reject the later-described endeavor rather than substantively evaluating national importance or positioning.
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)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a pharmacist, proposed to work in the United States through her own company providing pharmaceutical reg
- The Petitioner, a Brazilian-trained physiotherapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist and entrepreneur in the Un
- The Petitioner, a resident physician in New York holding a Chinese bachelor of medicine (MBBS) degree found equivalent t
- The Petitioner, a music therapist, proposed to establish and expand music therapy services and community music programs
- The Petitioner, a physical therapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist in the United States while operating his