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, an IT project manager, proposed to provide project management best practices and consulting services to companies needing help managing their projects; on motion she added that she had since founded her own consulting company.
Field: information technology project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“her 'proposed endeavor lacks sufficient specificity.'”
“the record does not establish how that employment will have "national or even global implications within a particular field"”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
“the Petitioner materially changed her proposed endeavor”
“A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after a petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“cannot establish eligibility for the reasons discussed above.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“cannot establish eligibility for the reasons discussed above.”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“she did not provide corroborating evidence of her potential clients' interest in response to the NOID.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“she did not elaborate on any particular employer for whom she intended to work or project she intended to manage.”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“whether the proposed endeavor is in a STEM field...are not dispositive”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
- Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
Notable
AAO found the Petitioner materially changed her proposed endeavor after filing by later founding her own consulting company, invoking Katigbak/Izummi to disregard all evidence tied to that company, including a COVID-19-related economic argument the AAO deemed impossible since the petition predated the pandemic's declaration.
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. 103.3
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
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