dismissedAPR192021_01B52032021-04-19 · 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, a marketing manager, proposed to continue working as a marketing manager for U.S. companies and her own firm, developing marketing strategies, market research, and cross-border business development between Latin American and U.S. markets.
Field: marketing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company, future employer, and clientele to impact her field or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's marketing projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- contract revenue · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company, future employer, and clientele”
AAO decision text - other · credited
- other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
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
The record includes a company formed by the Petitioner and her spouse with modest revenue ($29,134 gross receipts), which the AAO treated as insufficient to show impact beyond the company itself; the AAO explicitly noted it dismissed the appeal 'with each considered as an independent and alternate basis' despite only reaching 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.
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Poursina v. USCIS
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