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 intended to work as an executive assistant for senior partners and CEOs, with a goal of eventually developing into an event management role.
Field: executive assistance / event management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found the Petitioner established she was an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner's transfiguration of their proposed endeavor from the initial petition to the response to the RFE introduced significant ambiguity into their proposed endeavor which prevented analysis into its substantial merit or national importance.”
“It is not possible to determine the substantial merit and national importance of an endeavor when a Petitioner cannot consistently articulate the nature of the endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“prevented analysis into its substantial merit or national importance”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
- motion resubmission · discounted
“reiterates the same evidence already on record and does not specifically address the Director's grounds for denial”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
AAO adopted and affirmed the Director's decision under Matter of Burbano rather than conducting independent de novo analysis. The dispositive issue was that the Petitioner materially changed the description of the proposed endeavor between the initial filing and the RFE response, creating 'dueling proposed endeavors' that the AAO found impossible to evaluate under Dhanasar prong 1, citing Matter of Katigbak's rule that eligibility must be established at time of filing.
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. 103.3
- Chen v. INS
- Matter of Katigbak
- 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