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 psychologist, gave shifting descriptions of her proposed U.S. work, first as a clinical research coordinator and later as a consultant, business coach, entrepreneur (co-owner of AI companies), and prospective doctoral student.
Field: psychology / data science and artificial intelligence · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“she has not provided consistent information regarding her proposed endeavor and thus has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver”
“she did not consistently describe her proposed endeavor, we determined that she did not demonstrate any of the prongs under the Dhanasar analytical framework”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“it would serve no useful purpose for the Petitioner to provide new evidence to establish eligibility that is materially inconsistent with the evidence initially provided”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
- other · discounted
“the Petitioner's RFE response presented a new set of facts regarding the nature of her proposed endeavor, which is material to eligibility”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
The Petitioner alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming she was unaware of the contents of her petition and RFE response, but the AAO found her signature on the documents created a strong presumption she knew and assented to their contents (citing Matter of Valdez), and that she failed to resolve the inconsistency with independent objective evidence (citing Matter of Ho). The AAO treated inconsistent descriptions of the proposed endeavor across filings as dispositive of all three Dhanasar prongs without separately analyzing prongs 2 and 3.
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)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution