dismissedOCT302024_02B52032024-10-30 · appeal · Nebraska Service Center
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 financial manager and lawyer trained in Albania and the U.S., initially proposed to work as an independent contractor providing financial and legal services to U.S. companies; he later shifted to a plan to open his own law firm specializing in business art law.
Field: finance and law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided a specific or consistent proposed endeavor activity such that we can determine its national importance.”
“how one financial manager or lawyer will trigger substantial positive economic impacts has not been explained.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“constitute a material change to the proposed endeavor as initially stated, and therefore will not be considered.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the authors primarily focused on the Petitioner's past work experience and academic accomplishments”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“constitute a material change to the proposed endeavor as initially stated, and therefore will not be considered.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“it is of limited value in this matter, as the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor remains unclear.”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the evidence is insufficient to show that the potential prospective impact of this endeavor would have the sort of potential to employ U.S. workers”
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
2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO applied the material-change doctrine (Izummi/Katigbak) to disregard the Petitioner's RFE-stage pivot from independent-contractor work to founding his own law firm, evaluating national importance only against the original, vaguely defined endeavor and finding it insufficient on that basis alone.
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. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution