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 political scientist and former diplomat, proposed to work with U.S. NGOs, think tanks, academic centers, and government agencies as a policy analyst/researcher on Central Asian affairs, later also claiming he would operate a translation and immigration consulting business.
Field: political science / Central Asian affairs policy analysis · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not explain what type of research, reports, or articles that he intended to pursue”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work”
“we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of operating a translation and immigration consulting business”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“Eligibility must be established at the time of filing.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“we will not consider evidence submitted on appeal for any purpose”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
Notable
AAO refused to consider a materially changed endeavor (a translation/immigration consulting business) first raised in the RFE response because supporting evidence post-dated filing, and separately refused to consider new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal, citing Katigbak, Izummi, Bardouille, Soriano, and Obaigbena. The decision was dismissed on prong 1 alone, with the AAO expressly declining to reach prongs 2 and 3 as alternate/independent bases.
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)
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a senior principal biostatistician, proposes to develop innovative statistical and machine-learning meth
- The Petitioner proposed to use advanced deep learning and machine learning models to create efficient, safe, and well-pe
- The Petitioner proposes to advance machine learning methods for the design and optimization of advanced metamaterials an
- The Petitioner, a postdoctoral chemist, proposed to continue developing high-performance materials and novel synthetic m
- The Petitioner proposes to design novel sensor data processing methods and machine learning algorithms for smart wearabl