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 proposed to establish and operate his own IT consulting firm in the United States providing cybersecurity services, IT governance frameworks, and project management to U.S. businesses.
Field: information technology consulting / cybersecurity · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we similarly concluded the Petitioner had not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor and thereby had not established his eligibility for a national interest waiver”
“We will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of working for I I and its affiliated entities on digital transformation for the United States agricultural sector”
“The Petitioner does not provide new facts or evidence describing the national importance of his proposed endeavor, as described in his initial filing, of running an IT consulting firm in the United States”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner does not provide new facts or evidence describing the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · ignored
“We will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
Notable
The Petitioner attempted on combined motions to substitute a materially different proposed endeavor (digital transformation for an agricultural-sector employer) for the originally filed IT consulting firm endeavor; the AAO refused to consider this change under Katigbak/Izummi's material-change bar, and separately found no new facts or legal error offered as to the originally filed endeavor's national importance, so both the motion to reopen and motion to reconsider were dismissed.
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. 103.2(b)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers