dismissedJAN292024_03B52032024-01-29 · 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 work as a principal software engineer/architect designing and integrating IT systems for a specific U.S. company; after an RFE he changed course to propose founding and serving as CEO/chief software engineer of his own U.S. IT services company focused on software sustainability.

Field: systems/software engineering (IT services) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“It remains unclear whether his proposed endeavor is to secure a job with a U.S. IT company or pursue entrepreneurial aspirations of owning and operating his own company.”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“how one systems engineer will trigger substantial positive economic impacts has not been explained”

“the business plan was not probative or credible as it appeared incomplete, did not provide details about how the company would be funded”

“A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“such letters lacked any discussion of the proposed endeavor or its national importance and instead focused on the Petitioner's skills and experience”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“the business plan was not probative or credible as it appeared incomplete, did not provide details about how the company would be funded, and did not provide specific financial projections”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“While these articles provide useful background information, they are of limited value in this matter.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“such evidence addresses the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience; these are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“we decline to consider this additional evidence on appeal”
AAO decision text

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
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
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/Katigbak) to reject the Petitioner's post-RFE pivot from employee to entrepreneur, declining to consider the updated business plan submitted on appeal, and found neither the original nor altered endeavor met prong 1, reserving prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary.

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
Chen v. INS
Matter of Izummi
Matter of Katigbak
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer