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 field production operator in the oil and gas industry, originally proposed to continue working as an oil production plant operator for energy companies in the U.S.; after an RFE he submitted a revised business plan proposing to start his own engineering/consultancy company employing other engineers.
Field: oil and gas / industrial engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Director erroneously found the Petitioner held an advanced degree; in fact his bachelor's degree was earned less than two years before filing and was not followed by five years of progressive experience, so he did not qualify as an advanced degree professional. The Director must instead evaluate his claim of exceptional ability on remand.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“The Petitioner's revised plan to start and run his own company appears to represent a substantial departure from the original proposed endeavor”
“A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make an apparently deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make an apparently deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“The Petitioner's only degree is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. baccalaureate, which, by definition, is not an advanced degree.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
Notable
The AAO withdrew the Director's denial primarily because the Director provided no reasoned explanation for finding prongs 2 and 3 unmet, merely reciting the Dhanasar elements. The AAO also flagged that the Petitioner's post-RFE shift from continuing as an employee to founding his own company was an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi, and instructed the Director to evaluate the originally described endeavor and to first resolve the Petitioner's actual claim (exceptional ability, not advanced degree) on remand.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Izummi
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director erred by deeming petitioner an advanced-degree holder, failed to address exceptional ability, gave no reasoned Dhanasar analysis, and petitioner impermissibly changed the proposed endeavor post-filing.
Define the proposed endeavor concretely and consistently at filing; post-RFE pivots to a new business plan will be treated as an improper material change.
vague
other
mixed
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod