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 originally proposed to direct a school for bodyboarding and environmental studies, then on motion recharacterized his endeavor as work as an environmental engineer focused on coastal restoration and conservation.
Field: environmental engineering / coastal restoration and conservation (originally proposed as a school for bodyboarding and environmental awareness) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO had previously found, contrary to the Director, that the Petitioner qualified for classification as an individual of exceptional ability.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he did not show that this proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his environmental engineering projects to impact the field more broadly than his specific coastal restoration and conservation programs”
“which constituted a material change to the petition”
“we concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his proposed work meets the "national importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“did not offer any arguments or refer to any legal authority to demonstrate that we erred”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“recites his past accomplishments, education, skills, and plans for the future”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
This is a second motion to reconsider following an earlier appeal dismissal and a first motion to reconsider dismissal. The AAO noted the Petitioner attempted to materially change his proposed endeavor from a bodyboarding/environmental-studies school to environmental engineering work, citing Matter of Izummi's bar on material changes.
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. 103.5(a)(3)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of O-S-G-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to identify any factual or legal error in the prior decision and did not show the endeavor's impact extended beyond his specific local projects, so the motion to reconsider was denied.
On motions to reconsider, specifically identify the alleged legal/factual error in the prior decision; do not merely re-assert credentials or change the endeavor's characterization.
vague
economic_growth_generic · field_advancement
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp