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, an accountant and business operations specialist, initially proposed work in that field but, in response to an RFE, described a new intention to start his own business.
Field: accounting and business operations · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the business plan, which was submitted in response to a request for evidence (RFE), amounted to a material change to the petition because the Petitioner did not outline an intention to start his own business in documentation initially included with his petition.”
“the Petitioner generally reiterated how his professional qualifications establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor but did not address the Director's determination that his experience relates to the second Dhanasar prong, rather than its national importance under the first prong.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“amounted to a material change to the petition”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“did not address the Director's determination that his experience relates to the second Dhanasar prong, rather than its national importance under the first prong”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“has not offered new evidence or facts on motion to overcome the stated grounds for dismissal”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
Notable
The AAO reserved analysis of Dhanasar prongs two and three as unnecessary once prong one was found dispositively unmet, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-. The core issue was a material-change finding: the Petitioner's RFE-stage business plan describing a new self-employment venture was deemed a new claim not present in the initial filing, undermining the national-importance showing under prong one. The Petitioner's motion largely reasserted prior arguments without addressing the material-change or prong-one findings, leading to dismissal of both the motion to reopen and to reconsider.
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. 103.2(b)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Chen v. INS
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
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