The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer/manager for a plastics supplier to automakers, initially sought to continue that role, then after an RFE pivoted to proposing his own consulting company providing quality engineering services to automotive manufacturers.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we agree with the Director that the Petitioner's new proposed endeavor to establish a consulting company in the United States is a material change to the initial petition.”

“The Petitioner has not provided a business plan with revenue projections or staffing models.”

“he has not demonstrated that his specific consultancy services would have a significant economic or scientific impact that would rise to the level of national importance.”

“the Petitioner has not shown that his future work for [the company] as a mechanical engineer and manager has the potential to impact the automotive industry as a whole and rise to the level of national importance.”

“he has not otherwise identified a base of operations, specific clients within the automotive industry, or the specific benefit his consulting services would have for those companies.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “his position withing [the company] may have made him valuable to that company and their clients”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's past record of success in his industry is immaterial to the business he intends to operate”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “The Petitioner has not provided a business plan with revenue projections or staffing models.”

  AAO decision text
• media · ignored

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
• Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed

Notable

AAO rejected an APA-based argument that the Director used impermissible boilerplate templates, finding the denial reflected individualized consideration. The decision turns heavily on the 'material change' doctrine from Matter of Izummi/Katigbak, treating the Petitioner's shift from continuing employment to founding a consulting business as a disqualifying material change, after which the AAO nonetheless alternatively analyzed and rejected the new endeavor's national importance.

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)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• Matter of L-A-C-

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