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 lawyer, initially proposed to continue his studies and seek employment as a contracted lawyer for U.S. companies, then shifted on RFE to establishing a legal consulting and educational services business in underserved areas, and further refined on appeal to an anti-corruption, access-to-justice, and law-technology enterprise.
Field: law / legal consulting and education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner did not provide any particulars and did not demonstrate that continuing his studies and broadly seeking employment to be contracted as a lawyer for U.S. companies were sufficient to satisfy Dhanasar's requirement of a specific proposed endeavor.”
“The Petitioner did not establish that he offered a specific proposed endeavor as required under Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.”
“Without a specific proposed endeavor, a determination cannot be made whether the endeavor has substantial merit and national importance (prong one).”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“The Petitioner's initial statement made no references to establishing and operating a legal consulting and educational services business.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
The AAO found the petitioner materially changed his proposed endeavor three times — from seeking employment as a contracted lawyer, to opening a legal consulting/education business, to an anti-corruption/access-to-justice/law-technology enterprise on appeal — and held that the shifting descriptions amounted to abandonment of any specific proposed endeavor. The AAO also withdrew SCOPS' favorable prong-one substantial-merit finding because no specific endeavor had been identified. The petitioner appeared to have filed pro se initially and only obtained counsel for the RFE response, contributing to the inconsistency.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner materially changed his proposed endeavor between filing, RFE response, and appeal, so no fixed specific endeavor existed as of filing, precluding any Dhanasar prong analysis.
Define and evidence one specific, concrete endeavor at filing; later-introduced business plans or new endeavors will be disregarded as impermissible post-filing facts.
vague
economic_job_creation · geographic_or_shortage_area · field_advancement
person_focused
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