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 work as an independent consultant in corporate law related to the oil and gas industry, then later claimed she would serve as CEO of one or more newly formed consulting companies providing services to the oil and gas industry.
Field: business consulting in the oil and gas industry / corporate law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and the AAO did not dispute, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“We conclude the RFE response presented a new set of facts regarding the proposed endeavor, which is material to eligibility for a national interest waiver.”
“It is unclear whether her intent is to work as an independent consultant as originally stated, or whether she intends to work as the chief executive officer for one or more consulting companies.”
“Because the Petitioner has not resolved the inconsistencies regarding her proposed endeavor, we are unable to determine the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake or whether that endeavor has national importance”
“the advisory opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details of the proposed endeavor and why it would have national importance.”
“the evidence does not establish the location where the proposed endeavor will operate and how it will generate income”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the advisory opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details of the proposed endeavor and why it would have national importance.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“presents a new set of facts material to eligibility for the requested benefit that the Petitioner did not present at the time of filing.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the initial evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner was eligible for a national interest waiver”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
Notable
The AAO's dismissal rested heavily on material-change doctrine (Katigbak/Izummi) rather than a typical NIW national-importance critique: the Petitioner's description of her proposed endeavor shifted across the initial filing, RFE response, and appeal (independent consultant vs. CEO of two different, differently named companies), and the AAO treated these shifting, unresolved claims as fatal to identifying 'the specific 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)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- 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