dismissedJUL132023_03B52032023-07-13 · 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, a self-employed financial specialist subcontracting for U.S. companies, proposed to continue that work and train other financial employees; on RFE he instead described founding and serving as CEO of his own financial, accounting, and tax services company in Florida.
Field: financial services / accounting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner did not initially state that the proposed endeavor would entail founding his own financial services consulting company or hiring employees to work for him.”
“his assertions in response to the RFE regarding his new startup company present a new set of facts that purport to materially change the petition and, thus, cannot establish eligibility”
“the record does not establish how working as a self-employed financial specialist subcontractor may have "national or even global implications within a particular field..."”
“None of the articles referenced on appeal specifically identify the Petitioner and his proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“presents a new set of facts that purport to materially change the petition and, thus, cannot establish eligibility”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“academic and prior employment history are material to the second Dhanasar prong... [but] immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“None of the articles referenced on appeal specifically identify the Petitioner and his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- 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
1,619coded 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 found the petitioner materially changed the proposed endeavor between filing and RFE response (from self-employed subcontractor to founder/CEO of a company he had actually incorporated before filing but did not disclose), invoking Katigbak/Izummi to disregard the business plan and related assertions entirely rather than assessing them on the merits.
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-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution