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 described working generically in business management to help U.S. companies with 'critical projects,' but in his RFE response shifted to proposing to create a new consulting business focused on supply chain, logistics, financial management, and turnaround management.
Field: business management / mechanical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO instructed the Director to reconsider whether the Petitioner's mechanical engineering degree supports advanced-degree eligibility in business management, to evaluate the accountant's letter's reliability regarding progressive experience, and to determine if the alternative exceptional-ability criteria are met; no threshold determination was made in this decision.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“The Petitioner did not sufficiently explain the relevance of these separate occupations in relation to his proposed endeavor.”
“We cannot determine whether the Petitioner intends to work as a business manager, entrepreneur, chief executive officer (CEO), supply chain manager, consultant, or some combination of these occupations.”
“The evidence provided in the RFE response appears to change the focus of the Petitioner's endeavor and the Petitioner did not acknowledge or explain this change.”
“The Petitioner did not provide evidence of when he created this company or whether it exists yet.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“It is not apparent how the Petitioner's accountant would have the knowledge or authority to speak on behalf of the Petitioner's prior employers”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“the evidence does not establish that these discrete courses amount to a business administration degree”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner did not provide evidence of when he created this company or whether it exists yet.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
The primary basis for remand was an apparent clerical/identity error—the Director's decision 'does not correspond to the Petitioner'—rather than a substantive prong failure. The AAO nonetheless provided extensive guidance on threshold EB-2 issues (degree-endeavor mismatch, accountant letter reliability) and flagged that the Petitioner materially changed his proposed endeavor between filing and RFE response, citing Matter of Michelin Tire Corp. and Matter of Izummi against such changes.
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)(8)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of Izummi
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
The Director's decision did not correspond to this Petitioner (wrong petitioner's decision issued) and the proposed endeavor was materially inconsistent and undefined across filing stages, precluding merits review.
Define the proposed endeavor precisely and consistently from filing onward; do not materially alter its scope or occupation in RFE response, as USCIS treats such shifts as an unauthorized amendment barring adjudication.
vague
economic_growth_generic
person_focused
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