dismissedMAY122023_08B52032023-05-12 · appeal · Texas Service Center
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, a marketing manager, initially proposed to work in her occupation generally, and later claimed she would start her own marketing company employing about 14 workers in a Florida HUBZone.
Field: marketing management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed by AAO.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession where the Petitioner will work, but the specific impact of that proposed endeavor”
“simply being employed in an occupation does not constitute an endeavor for the purposes of these proceedings”
“the record does not establish that this business activity would constitute a significant economic benefit to the United States, Florida, or any economically depressed region”
“The Petitioner made significant and material changes to her proposed endeavor in response to the Director's RFE.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“Since her company and business plan were not created until after the time of filing, they cannot be used to establish her eligibility”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters concern events that occurred after the time of filing, and so cannot establish eligibility”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“this documentation is relevant to the second Dhanasar prong regarding whether she is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Professor V-L-'s letter is not in accord with the evidence of the Petitioner's experience or proposed occupation, and so we will not grant it decisive weight”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
1,312coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO rejected post-filing material change doctrine (Izummi) to disregard a business (company incorporated after RFE) formed to bolster the petition, treating the new company/business plan as an impermissible after-the-fact amendment rather than merely insufficient evidence.
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 E-M-
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod