The Petitioner, a financial analyst in real estate finance, proposed to work identifying cross-border investment opportunities, advising clients, and later shifted to leading a real estate investment company he cofounded to conduct land feasibility analysis and capital raising.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor.”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as initially described, stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer and its clientele to impact the real estate industry or the U.S. economy more broadly”

“he has not sufficiently demonstrated that his specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”

“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“the record contains conflicting information about the basic nature of the proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “his establishment of a new company and plan to perform services as a CEO for this entity formed after the filing date cannot retroactively establish eligibility.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted
• resume experience · discounted

  “His education and past experience, however, are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

The AAO emphasized that the Petitioner materially changed his proposed endeavor after filing (from working as an employee financial analyst to founding his own real estate investment company), and held that this post-filing change could not retroactively establish eligibility, citing Matter of Izummi's material-change doctrine as a key basis for rejecting the amended endeavor description.

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. 103.3
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
• The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
• The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
• The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
• The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod