dismissedJAN252024_05B52032024-01-25 · appeal · Texas Service Center

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 seek employment as a mechanical engineer offering services across the U.S., but later, in response to an RFE, revised the endeavor to founding and co-owning a mechanical engineering consulting startup with his spouse.

Field: mechanical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director found the Petitioner did not qualify as an individual of exceptional ability and did not address advanced-degree eligibility; the AAO found on appeal that the record establishes the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree based on a bachelor's-equivalent degree plus seven years of progressive experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“seek employment as a [m]echanical [e]ngineer in the field of [e]ngineering, seeking to offer my services across the U.S.”

“the 2023 business plan, dated after the Petitioner filed the Form 1-140 in 2022, presents a new set of material facts that cannot establish eligibility”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“the 2023 business plan, dated after the Petitioner filed the Form 1-140 in 2022, presents a new set of material facts that cannot establish eligibility”
AAO decision text
degree · credited
resume experience · credited

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
Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor

1,312coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

The AAO reversed the Director's failure to address advanced-degree eligibility, finding the Petitioner met that threshold, but still dismissed the appeal solely on Dhanasar prong 1. The decision relies heavily on the material-change-of-facts doctrine (Katigbak, Izummi) to reject the Petitioner's RFE-stage pivot from seeking mechanical engineering employment to founding a consulting company, treating the later business plan as an impermissible new set of facts rather than evidence of the originally filed endeavor.

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
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Matter of Izummi
Matter of Katigbak
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer