The Petitioner initially proposed to work as a marketing director specializing in Brazilian travel for the U.S. travel and tourism industry, then in RFE response pivoted to proposing to start and grow a new gluten-free/healthy-food business and brand in Florida.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry in which the Petitioner will work; instead, we focus on the Petitioner's proposed specific endeavor, and its impact on the U.S. economy.”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as initially described, stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employer or business and its clientele to impact the travel and tourism industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly”

“she has not sufficiently demonstrated that her specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”

“we find that the Petitioner made an impermissible material change to her proposed endeavor.”

“subsequent material changes to the proposed endeavor cannot retroactively establish eligibility at the time of filing, and the record contains conflicting information about the basic nature of the proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• resume experience · discounted

  “Her education and prior experience, however, are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national.”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “subsequent material changes to the proposed endeavor cannot retroactively establish eligibility at the time of filing”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · ignored

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• 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 found that the Petitioner impermissibly changed her proposed endeavor between the initial filing (marketing director for travel/tourism) and the RFE response (food business entrepreneur), invoking Matter of Izummi and Matter of Katigbak on material changes and 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1); it then evaluated national importance only as to the originally filed endeavor, finding it unmet and dispositive, declining to reach prongs 2 and 3.

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 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