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.
As originally filed, the Petitioner sought leadership positions in financial/budget management within U.S. companies; in response to an RFE she instead described plans to open and operate her own technology-driven financial consulting firm.
Field: financial management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found the Petitioner qualified as an individual of exceptional ability without conducting a final merits determination; the AAO withdrew that conclusion but reserved the issue because the national interest waiver analysis was dispositive.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner's initial description of her proposed endeavor did not include plans to open and operate a business.”
“Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner made an impermissible material change to her proposed endeavor.”
“The relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications in the financial management industry”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“its effective date of May 2024 occurred after the petition's initial filing date of September 15, 2023”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“we do not discuss every piece of evidence individually”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“generally immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
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
The AAO treated the Petitioner's shift from seeking employment as a financial manager to proposing to open her own consulting firm (raised for the first time in RFE response) as an impermissible material change, and adjudicated the petition based on the originally filed endeavor. The AAO also withdrew the Director's finding that the Petitioner qualified as an individual of exceptional ability but reserved the underlying EB-2 classification issue as moot given the dispositive prong-one denial.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- Visinscaia v. Beers
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