The Petitioner, a safety engineer, initially proposed to work for a U.S. employer developing and enforcing workplace health and safety standards, but later shifted to describing plans to start his own occupational health and safety consulting company, and then further shifted on appeal to describing himself as a business development and marketing professional.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The record appears to currently contain three proposed endeavors in various stages of development.”

“We conclude that both the RFE response and the appeal brief presented a new set of facts regarding the proposed endeavor, which is material to eligibility for a national interest waiver.”

“these informational documents did not speak specifically to the Petitioner's endeavor or establish how the Petitioner's individual business would influence the field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“The Petitioner has not provided a definitive and consistent description of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor that would allow for a meaningful analysis of whether that endeavor is one of substantial merit and/or national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “they did not provide insight or otherwise clarify the Petitioner's endeavor or contain objective evidence to demonstrate the endeavor's national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “these informational documents did not speak specifically to the Petitioner's endeavor or establish how the Petitioner's individual business would influence the field more broadly”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “the amended endeavor cannot retroactively establish eligibility”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• 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

Notable

AAO focused heavily on the Petitioner's shifting description of his proposed endeavor across the initial filing, RFE response, and appeal brief (from employee engineer, to consultancy founder, to 'business development and sales professional'), treating this material inconsistency as an independent, dispositive basis for denial under Matter of Katigbak and Matter of Izummi, in addition to the standard national-importance analysis.

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-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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