The Petitioner initially proposed to seek employment at a U.S. university to teach cinematic arts, then later attempted to change the endeavor to opening his own school/business to teach cinematic arts.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“We have insufficient information concerning the Petitioner's initial proposed endeavor with which to determine whether it has substantial merit because the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has not been clearly defined.”

“Because we have so little information regarding that initially proposed endeavor, we cannot even analyze it under the Dhanasar framework, let alone determine whether it has substantial merit and national importance under Dhanasar's first prong.”

“we find that the Petitioner did not submit persuasive evidence to support a finding of substantial merit and national importance, and thus did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “They did not mention the Petitioner's plans to establish a business.”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “The Petitioner's proposed endeavor to open a business was presented after the filing date and cannot retroactively establish eligibility.”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “On appeal, the Petitioner resubmits the same documents and asserts that the Director's decision was erroneous.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking

Notable

The AAO's central holding rests on an impermissible material change doctrine: the Petitioner switched their proposed endeavor mid-case (from seeking university employment to opening their own school/business) after the RFE, and the AAO refused to consider the new endeavor, evaluating eligibility only under the abandoned, underdeveloped original endeavor, which it then found too vague to assess under prong 1.

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)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(8)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, a musician and music educator, proposed to advance music education in the United States by opening a pia
• The petitioner, a tattoo artist, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability along with a nationa
• The Petitioner, an MMA athlete and trainer, proposed to operate a jiu jitsu company through which he would train and com
• The Petitioner sought to establish an arts education academy in Ohio, with plans to expand to New York and Michigan, off
• The Petitioner, an art curator, proposed to establish a nonprofit cultural center/platform focused on exhibitions, oral