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 systems analyst, proposed to design and implement systems and models, and later to establish a Florida-based consulting company, to help U.S. oil and gas companies improve their existing methods.
Field: oil and gas systems analysis · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The record demonstrates the Petitioner qualifies as holding the equivalent of a master's degree via a bachelor's plus more than five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“The Petitioner must establish her role in the innovation she cited as a basis for her waiver claim, rather than just demonstrate that she works in a field in which such innovation takes place.”
“The burden is on the Petitioner to show how, and to what extent, her work will affect issues discussed in her background materials such as pollution, climate change, and the economic impact of the oil and gas industry.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“the development of that software would tend to be more consequential than training in the use of software created by others”
AAO decision text
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
The Director denied on a procedural theory (impermissible material change of proposed endeavor under Matter of Izummi) rather than reaching the merits of the NIW claim; AAO found no material change occurred, withdrew the denial, and remanded for the Director to make the first merits determination, while flagging that the record on national importance appears underdeveloped.
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 Izummi
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's sole denial ground (impermissible material change between initial filing and RFE response) was unsupported by the record, so AAO withdrew denial but found merits record underdeveloped, requiring remand.
Adding factual detail in an RFE response is not a material change if consistent with original claim; but petitioner must still show a concrete, personal role in the innovation claimed, not just field membership.
vague
economic_growth_generic · field_advancement
endeavor_focused
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