dismissedSEP112023_04B52032023-09-11 · appeal · Texas 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, an attorney, initially proposed to work in the United States as an international arbitration legal advisor for a U.S. law firm/company, helping U.S. businesses resolve disputes through arbitration instead of litigation. In response to an RFE she instead described founding and leading her own ADR consulting company, which the AAO treated as a material change to the originally filed endeavor.

Field: international arbitration / alternative dispute resolution law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record includes generic descriptions of an international arbitration legal advisor's duties”

“While such an endeavor may impact her employers or the individual clients she assists”

“she has not substantiated how her specific work as an international arbitration legal advisor will positively impact the economy”

“The Petitioner's plans to direct a newly established company, submitted for the first time in response to the RFE, cannot retroactively establish eligibility.”

“none of the authors discussed the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as initially stated”

“A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“none of the authors discussed the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as initially stated”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“constitutes a material change to the Petitioner's initial proposed endeavor and we will not consider it in our appellate review”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the advisory opinions are of little probative value as they do not meaningfully address the details of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“this evidence concerns the overall impact of ADR in the field of law in general, and does not show...national importance”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed

1,312coded 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

The AAO applied the material-change doctrine from Matter of Izummi/Katigbak (typically used in other visa contexts) to bar consideration of the Petitioner's RFE-stage pivot from seeking employer-sponsored work to founding her own consulting company, finding this pivot fatal to prong 1 even though it declined to reach prongs 2 and 3. A footnote notes the company was not incorporated until about seven months after filing, undercutting the claimed endeavor.

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
Matter of Izummi
Matter of Katigbak
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer