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 manufacture unidentified confidential healthcare products in a U.S. factory, then later shifted to describing his endeavor as developing his own trucking company founded in 2020.
Field: economics / healthcare products manufacturing / trucking · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner did not establish that his bachelor's-equivalent degree plus five years of progressive experience were in the specialty of his proposed endeavor, because the endeavor itself was not adequately identified and shifted materially between filing and appeal.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“we cannot ascertain whether your letters [of experience] have probative value”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
The Petitioner materially changed his description of the proposed endeavor between filing (manufacturing unidentified healthcare products) and RFE response/appeal (operating a trucking company founded in 2020, after the filing date). AAO treated this as an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi and Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., found the trucking company facts constituted a new set of facts not establishing eligibility as of filing, and suggested in a footnote that the Petitioner may have abandoned the original endeavor, rendering the specialty question seemingly moot. The decision resolved entirely on threshold EB-2 classification (advanced degree/specialty match) and expressly reserved all NIW prong issues under Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Izummi
- 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