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 initially proposed to work as an entrepreneurial marketing director advising U.S. property management firms, but later shifted the proposed endeavor to operating a business reselling automotive and agricultural lubricant products.
Field: marketing/real estate, later lubricant resale business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner's claimed juris doctor transcript showed an incomplete degree with no graduation date, and the evaluation combining incomplete education with work experience did not satisfy the single-source advanced degree requirement. The Petitioner also failed to meet at least three of the six exceptional-ability criteria (education, experience letters, license/certification, salary, membership, and recognition), rendering them categorically ineligible for EB-2 classification.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The materially significant transformation of the Petitioner's entrepreneurial endeavor rendered their proposed endeavor ill-defined and amorphous.”
“So it is not possible to determine the substantial merit and national importance of an endeavor when a Petitioner cannot consistently articulate the nature of the endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“The record does not reflect any progress to achieving the proposed endeavor other than establishing their company.”
“the recommendation letters the Petitioner submitted are not material, relevant, or probative evidence in the record of interest or support in the endeavor the Petitioner proposed in their petition.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established
“We agree with the Director that the record does not satisfy the third Dhanasar prong.”
“The absence of a well-defined proposed endeavor can render balancing the benefit to the United States to waiving the job offer requirement and consequently a labor certification impossible.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the transcript indicated the Petitioner's claimed education was incomplete.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“we cannot conclude that the Petitioner has a license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letters they submitted from current or former employers do not support a conclusion the Petitioner has at least ten years of full-time experience”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the evidence the Petitioner submitted did not meet the standard of proof because it did not satisfy the basic standards of the regulations.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“It transformed the proposed endeavor into a wholly different one.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
- Urgency not established · p3 — no reason shown why the benefit cannot wait for labour certification
Notable
The Petitioner materially changed the proposed endeavor mid-proceeding, from a marketing-director consulting role to an entrepreneurial lubricant-resale business, which the AAO treated as an impermissible post-filing transformation under Matter of Katigbak/Izummi and used to defeat prongs 1 and 2 independently, alongside a separate, independently dispositive finding of categorical EB-2 ineligibility.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Y-B-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner materially changed the proposed endeavor mid-case (marketing director to lubricant-resale entrepreneur) and failed EB-2 categorical eligibility (no advanced degree, no exceptional ability criteria met), making both classification and NIW prongs unprovable.
Establish EB-2 category eligibility with proper single-source degree/exceptional-ability evidence first, and keep the proposed endeavor consistent from filing through RFE response—never substitute a new venture.
vague
economic_growth_generic · economic_job_creation
person_focused
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