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 Brazilian entrepreneur with over 15 years of experience in the bakery-equipment manufacturing and distribution industry, proposed to continue work as a business/industrial administrator advising companies doing business in Brazil; she later attempted to change her endeavor to real estate brokerage services attracting Brazilian investors to Florida.
Field: business/industrial administration (bakery equipment manufacturing); later real estate · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualified as an advanced-degree professional based on a bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner did not offer specific information and evidence to corroborate her assertions that the prospective impact of continuing her work as an entrepreneur ... rises to the level of national importance.”
“The Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor rather than the importance of Brazil as a target for expansion for U.S. businesses.”
“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy.”
“Accordingly, we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of working as a real estate broker.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not address the national importance of her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor rather than the importance of Brazil as a target for expansion”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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 refused to consider the Petitioner's post-filing change of proposed endeavor (from bakery-industry consulting to real estate brokerage), citing Matter of Izummi and Matter of Bardouille for the principle that eligibility must exist at filing and cannot be based on subsequently arising facts.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers