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, an energy systems engineer with a 2022 doctorate, sought to work in solar-thermal and related energy technologies, later claiming he would start a company manufacturing and selling high-performance energy systems.
Field: energy systems engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director concluded, and record supported, that Petitioner qualifies as an EB-2 advanced degree professional based on a foreign degree equivalency.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he has not specified whether he will work as a researcher or start an energy systems business, or how he will divide his time between these activities”
“the changes the Petitioner made to his proposed endeavor in response to the Director's RFE are material to his eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong”
“The patent application ... is dated May 2023, as is the funding pledge letter”
“the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information about his endeavor to establish that it will "probably" farther human knowledge”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“The recommendation letters ... do not relate specifically to his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the revised endeavor is a material change made after filing and will not be accepted”
AAO decision text - patents · discounted
“The patent application ... is dated May 2023, as is the funding pledge letter”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“These documents also date from after the Director's April 2023 RFE”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“these credentials relate to the second Dhanasar prong ... do not relate to whether that endeavor would have substantial merit”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- resume experience · discounted
“his work and publication history as a research assistant ... relate to the second Dhanasar prong”
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
- Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
Notable
The AAO found the appeal independently dispositive on a non-substantive ground: the Petitioner never submitted the required DOL Form ETA-750B (or ETA-9089 Parts J/K/L) despite being told to do so in the RFE and denial, and waived the issue by not addressing it on appeal. The AAO also applied the material-change doctrine (Matter of Izummi/Katigbak) to reject a business-plan-based endeavor first raised in RFE response as differing materially from the initial filing, which described only a vague job search.
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. 103.3
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a senior principal biostatistician, proposes to develop innovative statistical and machine-learning meth
- The Petitioner proposed to use advanced deep learning and machine learning models to create efficient, safe, and well-pe
- The Petitioner proposes to advance machine learning methods for the design and optimization of advanced metamaterials an
- The Petitioner, a postdoctoral chemist, proposed to continue developing high-performance materials and novel synthetic m
- The Petitioner proposes to design novel sensor data processing methods and machine learning algorithms for smart wearabl