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 Brazilian financial manager, initially proposed to continue his career with large multinational U.S. corporations, but later described his endeavor as running his own Florida-based accounting/financial consulting company as CEO, attracting foreign investors and advising on U.S. real estate.
Field: financial management / accounting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not establish he holds a qualifying advanced degree (only bachelor's equivalency shown, with insufficient/inconsistent evidence of 5 years progressive post-baccalaureate experience) nor that he satisfies at least three of the six exceptional-ability criteria (met only one).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not identified a specific or consistent proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner's RFE response materially changed his proposed endeavor from that which he described in his initial filing”
“the Petitioner has not provided a specific or consistent proposed endeavor activity such that we can determine its substantial merit and national importance”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“Because the Petitioner has not provided consistent information regarding his proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that he meets either the first or second prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“the letters do not include a sufficient explanation of the Petitioner's duties in the positions such that the progressive nature of the Petitioner's experience can be established”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“both documents' validity expired in March 2019, prior to the filing of the petition in April 2019”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“did not provide details regarding how the financial management model worked, what it involved, or how the Petitioner developed it”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Endeavor too vague · p2 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
AAO applied the material-change doctrine (Matter of Izummi/Michelin Tire) to the petitioner's shifting description of his proposed endeavor between the initial filing and RFE response, treating the inconsistency as undermining both prong 1 and prong 2 even though the threshold EB-2 failure was the primary dispositive basis. AAO also questioned credibility due to a signature dated 'April 31, 2010' (a nonexistent date) and flagged a support letter apparently written for a different petitioner, plus suspected familial authorship of another letter sharing the petitioner's surname.
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)(8)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- Section 291 of the Act
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