A general and operations manager with over 21 years of experience in supermarket/retail operations initially proposed to continue working as an operations manager for U.S. companies, then, in response to an RFE, claimed he would establish a U.S.-based retail consulting firm.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of operating a consulting service.”

“the Petitioner did not offer specific information and evidence to corroborate his assertions that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”

“the Petitioner did not show that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of operating a consulting service.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”

  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
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed

Notable

The AAO refused to consider the Petitioner's revised proposed endeavor (establishing a consulting firm) submitted in response to the RFE, citing the rule against post-filing changes in eligibility facts (Izummi/Bardouille). It also expressly adopted the Director's reasoning under Matter of P. Singh/Burbano and Chen v. INS, and declined to reach prongs two and three, stating each ground was an independent and alternate basis for dismissal.

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)
• Chen v. INS
• Matter of Bardouille
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
• The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
• The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
• The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
• The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution