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 continue working as an industrial production manager; he later attempted to shift, in RFE response, to founding and operating a company as CEO providing maintenance services for wind farms.
Field: industrial production management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director and AAO found the Petitioner met the exceptional ability eligibility criteria.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“In response to the RFE, the Petitioner impermissibly made a material change to his proposed endeavor and asserted that the materially changed proposed endeavor met the requirement of national importance.”
“we find that the Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that his initial endeavor of working as an industrial production manager is nationally important.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“Because the Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing, his claims of national importance relating to operating [the company], a material change from the initially filed petition, cannot be considered.”
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
Case turned on an impermissible material change in the proposed endeavor doctrine (industrial production manager vs. later-claimed entrepreneur/CEO of a wind-farm maintenance company raised only in RFE response), rather than a conventional Dhanasar merits failure; AAO declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary given the dispositive material-change/national-importance finding as to the original endeavor.
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. 103.3
- Chen v. INS
- Matter of Katigbak
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