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 continue working as a treasurer and controller providing financial services to U.S. companies, but later shifted to proposing to own and operate a residential and commercial cleaning company that would also offer financial consulting services.
Field: finance/treasury and controllership · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO withdrew the Director's finding of categorical ineligibility but noted the record still lacked sufficient evidence of advanced degree or exceptional ability status; did not reach a final determination since the NIW issue was dispositive.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner's materially significant transformation into an entrepreneur rendered their proposed endeavor ill-defined and amorphous.”
“It is difficult to comprehend how a residential and commercial cleaning company could provide complex financial and business consulting services”
“The Petitioner's ambitious expansion plans are not supported in the record.”
“It is not possible to determine the substantial merit and national importance of an endeavor when a Petitioner cannot consistently articulate the nature of the endeavor.”
“So the fact that the Petitioner' proposed endeavor may be in a HUBZone is wholly irrelevant to whether the Petitioner's endeavor rose to a level of national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner's ambitious expansion plans are not supported in the record.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
- resume experience · discounted
“The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework is consequently unconcerned with the individual Petitioner.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the fact that the Petitioner' proposed endeavor may be in a HUBZone is wholly irrelevant”
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
AAO withdrew the Director's threshold EB-2 ineligibility finding as based on facts not in the record, but still found insufficient evidence of eligibility; case turned on the Petitioner materially changing the proposed endeavor mid-proceeding (from treasurer/controller role to owning a cleaning company), which the AAO treated as an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi and Katigbak, rendering the endeavor too ambiguous to assess under prong 1.
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. 103.3
- 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