The Petitioner initially stated he sought to work as an 'engineer' without elaboration, then later changed his proposed endeavor to providing sales operations consulting services to companies in the solar power industry.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“The record does not establish that the beneficiary has had success in prior related endeavors, that they have had significant roles in other projects, or that they are a member of organizations or communities where their ideas may help advance the endeavor.”

“obtaining a degree in the area of the proposed endeavor is advantageous, it does not establish on its own merits that the beneficiary is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”

“the experience letter from the company does not include a specific description of the Petitioner's duties as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l ).”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• degree · discounted

  “obtaining a degree in the area of the proposed endeavor is advantageous, it does not establish on its own merits that the beneficiary is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “The Petitioner does not explain how this experience has helped to position him well for work as a sales operations consultant.”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “he provided no dates for that newly claimed employment and no supporting evidence as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1).”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
• Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

Petitioner materially changed his proposed endeavor mid-adjudication (from 'engineer' to 'sales operations consulting' in the solar power industry), which the AAO treated under Matter of Izummi as an impermissible material change; the AAO also expressed skepticism about the Director's favorable finding on prong 1 national importance ('The wider importance of clean energy does not necessarily impart national importance to the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor as a sales consultant in that industry') but declined to disturb it since prong 2 and the material-change issue were independently dispositive.

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
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
• 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