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 business administrator, initially proposed an endeavor focused on administrative services and facilities management, then in her RFE response changed the endeavor description to financial management.
Field: business administration / financial management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and AAO noted, that the record establishes the Petitioner as an advanced degree professional rather than an individual of exceptional ability as she had initially claimed; this was not a basis for denial.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as a business administrator initially "focused on administrative services and facilities managers" and, in response to the request for evidence (RFE), "changed to financial manager."”
“As we are unable to ascertain the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor because she provided inconsistent information (and did not address the issue on appeal), we cannot conclude that she has established its substantial merit and national importance”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“we cannot conclude that she has established its substantial merit and national importance or that she is well-positioned to advance it.”
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
- Endeavor too vague · p2 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Material change of endeavor · p2 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
Notable
The dispositive issue was a material, unaddressed change in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor between filing and the RFE response (from facilities/administrative services manager to financial manager), which the AAO treated as impermissible under Matter of Izummi/Katigbak; because the Petitioner did not challenge this finding on appeal, the AAO deemed it waived and declined to reach the remaining Dhanasar arguments.
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)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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