The Petitioner initially proposed to work as a financial development director for a company in market research/financial analysis, then on appeal submitted a new business plan proposing to open his own business in the field.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we determined that it did not sufficiently demonstrate that his endeavor would have a broader impact beyond the organizations and clients he would serve”

“we determined that the Petitioner's proposed work would not have sufficiently broad implications in market research or financial industries”

“we concluded that the evidence did not show that the Petitioner planned to introduce novel methodologies or techniques that might be disseminated to others”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “the Petitioner provides no new facts or supporting documentation”

  AAO decision text

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

Notable

AAO rejected the petitioner's argument that a final merits determination should have been performed, clarifying that step-two final merits determination applies only to exceptional-ability track, not where petitioner already qualifies as advanced degree professional. Also notable: the underlying dispositive finding was based on the appeal decision's material-change analysis (business plan submitted on appeal deemed impermissible new endeavor), with this motion merely reaffirming that prior conclusion; prong 3 was never reached (reserved) at any stage.

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. 103.5
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of Coelho
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• Matter of L-A-C-

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