dismissedMAR172022_07B52032022-03-17 · 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 initially proposed to work as a bank manager developing employees and helping clients with their finances, then later asserted on appeal she would instead start her own business as a delivery service partner for a large e-commerce company.
Field: banking/finance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he Petitioner did not establish how her work as a bank manager stands to produce benefits to the nation beyond those accruing to her employer and its clients.”
“the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that her employment within the banking industry will be of national importance.”
“The Petitioner's revised plans to establish a new company and focus her endeavor on this business presented after the filing date cannot retroactively establish eligibility.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“Because the Petitioner has not provided consistent information regarding her proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that she meets either the first or second prong”
“we withdraw the Director's determination in this regard.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“this letter and other submitted evidence suggests the Petitioner is an exemplary banking employee, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that her employment within the banking industry will be of national importance.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner's revised plans to establish a new company and focus her endeavor on this business presented after the filing date cannot retroactively establish eligibility.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
Where this case turned
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
746coded 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 Petitioner materially changed her proposed endeavor on appeal (from bank manager to e-commerce delivery service partner business owner), which the AAO treated as an impermissible post-filing material change under Izummi/Katigbak, leading it to withdraw the Director's favorable second-prong finding and find both prongs 1 and 2 unmet.
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)
- 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