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.
An architect proposed to consult on architectural design and construction projects, including cross-border projects between the U.S. and Latin America/Brazil, and later shifted to establishing her own architecture and design business in Florida.
Field: architecture · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not identified a specific and consistent proposed endeavor”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims”
“There is little indication from the evidence provided that the impact of the proposed endeavor would reach the field of architecture or extend beyond the specific locations and parties involved in the architectural projects”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“none of the letters described the proposed endeavor or explained why it has national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the advisory opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“this would not be sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's endeavor impacts the field of architecture as a whole”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“none of the articles discuss the proposed endeavor or establish how the specific proposed endeavor has national importance”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO found Petitioner materially changed her proposed endeavor between initial filing (multinational architectural consulting, cross-border US-Brazil projects) and RFE response (own architecture business in Florida), invoking Matter of Michelin Tire Corp. and Matter of Izummi against post-filing material changes; this shift was treated as undermining prong 1 rather than as a separate procedural bar.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of V-K-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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