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 professional with a pharmaceutical-industry background, proposed to work as a marketing manager for U.S. companies, later changing this to working as marketing manager of her own company helping brands with low Amazon sales/presence.
Field: marketing (pharmaceutical sector) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as initially described, stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employer(s) and their clientele”
“the record does not establish whether the potential to employ U.S. workers is significant, and whether the potential positive economic effects would be substantial”
“the Petitioner's focus on appeal on the "role and importance of marketing" in general does not address aspects of the specific endeavor”
“this evidence does not concern her specific endeavor of providing marketing services and designing market strategies for U.S. companies”
“the record contains conflicting information about the basic nature of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the RFE response presented a new set of facts regarding the proposed endeavor, which is material to eligibility”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“this evidence does not concern her specific endeavor of providing marketing services and designing market strategies for U.S. companies”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO emphasized that the Petitioner materially changed her proposed endeavor in response to the RFE (from working for U.S. companies generally to running her own Amazon-focused marketing company), invoking Matter of Izummi/Katigbak on impermissible post-filing material changes; this inconsistency undermined the national importance analysis. AAO expressly reserved judgment on prongs 2 and 3.
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-
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