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 a civil engineer providing services to American employers, but in response to an RFE reframed the endeavor as owning and operating a concrete batching plant as CEO.
Field: civil engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; AAO noted in a footnote that inconsistent statements about the endeavor raise questions about the applicability of the MBA degree and that the record lacks evidence of five years of progressive experience for the exceptional-ability/bachelor's-plus-experience track, but did not disturb the Director's finding.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner's RFE response constituted a materially different endeavor wherein they employed first line supervisors, production workers, office staff, a "tutor," truck drivers and "helpers."”
“The Petitioner's materially significant transformation into an entrepreneur rendered their proposed endeavor ill-defined and amorphous.”
“The Dhanasar framework cannot be applied to two dueling proposed endeavors.”
“So it is not possible to determine the substantial merit and national importance of an endeavor when a Petitioner cannot consistently articulate the nature of the endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“the record as currently constituted would still not reflect how the Petitioner's prior performance of the duties described in the experience letters is either a similar effort as that of their proposed endeavor or how it constitutes a record of success”
“The record does not reflect any progress to achieving the proposed endeavor other than establishing their company.”
“The establishment of their company alone is not strong evidence of progress.”
“the recommendation letters the Petitioner submitted are not material, relevant, or probative evidence in the record of interest or support in the endeavor”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established
“The absence of a well-defined proposed endeavor can render balancing the benefit to the United States to waiving the job offer requirement and consequently a labor certification impossible.”
“As the Petitioner has not established that they meet the first or second prong of the Dhanasar framework, they have not shown that they are eligible for and otherwise merit a national interest waiver, and we reserve this issue.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The addition of the Petitioner's entrepreneurial business did not enhance or clarify the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“would still not reflect how the Petitioner's prior performance of the duties described in the experience letters is either a similar effort”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“are not material, relevant, or probative evidence in the record of interest or support in the endeavor the Petitioner proposed”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“They also resubmitted the opinion of the adjunct professor of mathematics and the recommendation letters.”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“their inconsistent statements with respect to their proposed endeavor raises questions regarding the applicability of their advanced degree to their proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
Notable
The AAO dismissed the appeal on a different basis than the Director: rather than finding the endeavor lacked national importance, the AAO found the endeavor itself was impermissibly ill-defined because the Petitioner materially changed the proposed endeavor from 'civil engineer providing services to American employers' to 'owner/operator of a concrete batching plant' in the RFE response, invoking Matter of Katigbak and Matter of Izummi (material change/eligibility-at-filing doctrine) to reject the shifted endeavor entirely rather than analyzing its merits.
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. 103.3
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Y-B-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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