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 mechanical engineer, initially proposed to continue working in mechanical engineering with multi-national companies, but later described (in RFE response) an additional entrepreneurial endeavor operating a holding company selling construction-related project design services and home goods.
Field: mechanical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew the Director's finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, noting the submitted 'Record of Employment' listing generic managerial responsibilities may not sufficiently establish five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in mechanical engineering; remanded for the Director to determine anew, and if not met, to consider exceptional ability.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“we withdraw the Director's conclusions that the Petitioner has established that 1) he is an advanced degree professional and 2) his proposed endeavor meets prong one under the Dhanasar analysis.”
“The Petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing.”
“A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
- business plan · discounted
“A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
AAO remands rather than dismisses or sustains: it withdraws the Director's favorable findings on both threshold EB-2 eligibility (advanced degree professional) and Dhanasar prong one, flagging a possible material change in the proposed endeavor (mechanical engineer vs. added entrepreneur/business-plan endeavor introduced in RFE response) and directing the Director to resolve both issues anew, including consideration of exceptional-ability classification if advanced-degree status is not established.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Unresolved threshold issues: whether Petitioner qualifies as advanced-degree professional/exceptional ability, and whether RFE response materially changed the proposed endeavor, precluded prong-one analysis.
Fix and consistently document the underlying EB-2 classification and specific endeavor at filing; do not introduce a materially different endeavor in RFE response.
vague
other
person_focused
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