dismissedJUL182023_07B52032023-07-18 · 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, holding a Brazilian diploma in administration, proposed to work in the United States as an administrator/financial analyst, submitting over 30 varied job postings (e.g., accounts payable clerk, real estate finance specialist, budget analyst) rather than a specific defined role.

Field: administration and finance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner claimed exceptional ability under criteria (A), (C), and (F) but failed to meet any of the three claimed criteria: academic record lacked untranslated originals, professional statement lacked certified translation and did not show licensure, and employer letter/certificate did not show impact beyond the employer.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner did not sufficiently explain the relevance of these separate job opportunities in relation to his proposed endeavor.”

“The record developed at the time of filing demonstrated that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was essentially a job search.”

“the [P]etitioner has not submitted a detailed description of the proposed endeavor and documentary evidence demonstrating that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“Without a copy of the Petitioner's untranslated academic transcripts, the Petitioner has not submitted documentation meeting the evidentiary requirements”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“Without a certified English translation, we are unable to determine the evidence's relevance and reliability”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not demonstrate how the Petitioner's services had an impact or extended beyond his employer”
AAO decision text
business plan · ignored
“The Petitioner's plan to establish a new business will not be considered in this decision”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“The record lacks evidence demonstrating the virtues of these different and diverse fields.”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking

1,581coded 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

The AAO found a material change in proposed endeavor between the initial petition (broad job search across 30+ postings) and the RFE response (a specific wind-turbine energy business plan naming Petitioner as CEO), and refused to consider the later business plan under Matter of Izummi's material-change doctrine, limiting review to the vague initial endeavor which then failed prong 1 as merely a job search.

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)(3)
8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(8)
Kazarian v. USCIS
Matter of Izummi
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS
Visinscaia v. Beers

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer