dismissedAUG012023_02B52032023-08-01 · motion_reconsider · 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, sought to continue working in marketing management, though her proposed endeavor appeared to change materially after a request for evidence.
Field: marketing management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner did not offer specific information and evidence to corroborate her assertions that the prospective impact of continuing her work as a marketing manager rises to the level of national importance”
“the record does not show through supporting documentation how her marketing management stands to sufficiently extend beyond the businesses that might employ her, to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”
“the Petitioner did not show that her initial proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner makes vague and general assertions that we disregarded unspecified evidence”
AAO decision text
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,589coded 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
This is a motion to reconsider an AAO appellate dismissal; the Petitioner raised a constitutional argument citing the Fourth Amendment, which the AAO noted in a footnote likely meant the Fifth Amendment's due process clause. The AAO's review was limited to whether its prior appellate decision was legally or factually incorrect, not a de novo review of the underlying petition.
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. 103.5
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