dismissedJAN262024_06B52032024-01-26 · 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, an aeronautical engineer, initially proposed to continue advising U.S.-based aviation manufacturers on growth and safety compliance through his current employer; he later attempted to substitute a new endeavor of founding and leading his own aircraft maintenance management and inspection company.

Field: aeronautical engineering / aviation industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found, and AAO agreed, that the petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced-degree professional based on his aeronautical engineering degree plus more than five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“it does not establish that the implications of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor as one employee of this company extends beyond the company itself to the broader industry or field.”

“he has not shown that this would directly result in an overall net economic gain at a broader level, or a that his specific work would result in a significant potential to employ U.S. workers”

“the Petitioner's statement and business plan do not describe how he would improve upon existing aircraft maintenance practices and operations”

“A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed to make an apparently deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”

“The Petitioner's plans to establish a new company and perform services as a CEO for this entity, formed after the filing date, cannot retroactively establish eligibility.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters primarily focus on the Petitioner's work experience and career achievements, factors that are weighed under the second prong”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner's statement and business plan do not describe how he would improve upon existing aircraft maintenance practices and operations”
AAO decision text
resume experience · credited

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
Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed

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

AAO applied the material-change doctrine (Matter of Izummi) to reject a petitioner's attempt to substitute a new founder/CEO endeavor introduced in an RFE response, and separately noted the new company was formed and its business plan dated after the filing date. A footnote dismisses several appellate brief arguments about the auto industry and piloting as 'editing errors' unrelated to either proposed 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. 103.2(b)(8)
8 C.F.R. 103.3
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Matter of Izummi
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer