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 own and operate a construction management and project development company in Florida, then in RFE response switched to describing employment as a quality test leader for an environmental controls supplier.
Field: construction management and project development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew the Director's finding of EB-2 eligibility, concluding the record failed to establish 5 years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience (letters omitted full-time/part-time status and showed unexplained overlapping employment periods) and failed to establish exceptional ability.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner's proposed endeavor was ill-defined and amorphous due to the material and significant changes made when they responded to the RFE.”
“The Petitioner's reversal introduced ambiguity into their proposed endeavor which prevented analysis into its substantial merit or national importance.”
“It is not possible to determine the substantial merit and national importance of an endeavor when a Petitioner cannot consistently articulate the nature of the endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“we cannot reliably conclude that the Petitioner has the requisite 5 years of progressively responsible experience in the specialty”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner's reversal introduced ambiguity into their proposed endeavor which prevented analysis into its substantial merit or national importance.”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
AAO withdrew the Director's finding of categorical EB-2 eligibility (an unusual sua sponte reversal) but declined to remand for further evidence, instead reaching the merits on the alternative, dispositive ground that the petitioner materially changed the proposed endeavor between initial filing and RFE response, rendering prong 1 unanalyzable under Katigbak/Izummi material-change doctrine.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
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