The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer and project manager, proposed to continue work modernizing critical oil and gas infrastructure (replacing aging pipelines and storage tanks); he later attempted to add a plan to open his own consulting company advising modernization projects.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The absence of a clearly defined proposed endeavor prevents us from meaningfully assessing the endeavor's significance under the Dhanasar framework.”

“Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner made an impermissible material change to his proposed endeavor.”

“he has not established that he has been awarded funding and he does not have a business plan for his proposed endeavor showing that it will have a national or regional economic impact”

“His petition is based on speculation and does not contain a business plan.”

“While the Petitioner's field of focus-modernizing oil and gas infrastructure-may generally align with nationally recognized priorities, the record does not establish how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor will have broader implications”

“Without sufficient evidence regarding the projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, the record does not show that the benefits to the regional or national economy... would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• funding · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not established that he has been awarded funding”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “His petition is based on speculation and does not contain a business plan.”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · ignored

  “We will not consider new evidence for the first time on appeal.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “these experiences are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

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
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed

Notable

AAO applied the material-change doctrine (citing Matter of Izummi and Katigbak) to reject the Petitioner's RFE-stage pivot from continued engineering work to launching a consulting firm, considering only the originally described endeavor; it also declined to consider two journal articles submitted for the first time on appeal citing Matter of Furtado.

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)(12)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak

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