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 continue working as a civil engineer for U.S. multi-national companies, advising on cross-border construction projects in Brazil; after the NOID she instead proposed to found and run her own U.S. construction management company pursuing infrastructure projects.
Field: civil engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director did not address threshold eligibility; AAO found the record established advanced-degree equivalency via foreign degree plus five years' progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“this evidence did not concern her specific endeavor of providing guidance to U.S. companies regarding construction projects in Brazil”
“it does not provide information regarding any specific infrastructure projects, or even the type of infrastructure projects, in which the company would be engaged in managing”
“the plan does not provide sufficient detail of the basis for these projections, or adequately explain how these income and staffing targets will be realized”
“it does not describe the ways in which her endeavor or her company will create and deploy innovations that will have broader implications for the construction industry”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the plan does not provide sufficient detail of the basis for these projections, or adequately explain how these income and staffing targets will be realized”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- degree · credited
- other · discounted
“this evidence did not concern her specific endeavor of providing guidance to U.S. companies regarding construction projects in Brazil”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
Notable
AAO found the Petitioner made an impermissible material change to her proposed endeavor in response to the NOID (switching from employee-advisor role to entrepreneur/CEO of a newly formed company), citing Matter of Izummi, and held that even if the new endeavor had been timely proposed, it still would not satisfy prong one. AAO reserved prongs two and three under Bagamasbad, treating prong one failure as an independent and alternate basis for dismissal.
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)
- Matter of Izummi
- 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