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 sales and marketing manager, initially proposed to continue assisting American companies with sales strategies, marketing plans, and business development; in his RFE response he described instead becoming an entrepreneur organizing national and international sports activities.
Field: sales and marketing / tourism · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner's bachelor's degree is in tourism operator/management, but his post-baccalaureate work experience was mainly as a pharmaceutical sales representative, not experience 'in the specialty' as required by 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2).
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“the employment verification letters indicate that the Petitioner has been working mainly in the pharmaceutical industry since 2007, generally as a sales representative”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”
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 AAO withdrew and remanded without substantively analyzing any Dhanasar prong; instead it identified a threshold mismatch between the Petitioner's degree field (tourism) and his work experience (pharmaceutical sales), and flagged that the Petitioner's RFE response describing a shift to becoming a sports-event entrepreneur may constitute an impermissible material change to the proposed endeavor, directing the Director to resolve both issues on remand.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director erred in finding advanced-degree eligibility (degree in tourism, experience in pharma sales, not 'in the specialty') and endeavor description was inconsistent between filing and RFE, requiring remand.
Ensure post-baccalaureate experience matches degree specialty and keep the proposed endeavor description consistent from filing through RFE responses to avoid remand for material change issues.
vague
person_focused
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