dismissedAUG102023_05B52032023-08-10 · 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 proposed to continue working as marketing director of her own marketing/media monitoring company in Florida, providing media monitoring, reputation management, and marketing intelligence services to small and midsize U.S. businesses.

Field: marketing/graphic design · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant inquiry is not the importance ofthe industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“she has not shown how the media monitoring and media intelligence services she intends to provide to her clients would have broader implications in the marketing field.”

“The job creation and revenue projections included in the Petitioner's business plan are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how those projections will be realized.”

“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that the areas where her company will operate are economically depressed”

“this evidence does not sufficiently show that such benefits, either individually or cumulatively, would reach beyond clients utilizing her company's services to the level of national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“Even if the Petitioner had established a sufficient basis for those projections, they would not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise acquired through her academic and professional career primarily relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“This evidence supports the Petitioner's claim that her proposed endeavor is in an area that has substantial merit, [but does not establish national importance]”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how those projections will be realized”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“these two petitioners sought employment-based first preference (EB-1) immigrant classification, which is different from the EB-2 immigrant classification”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
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

1,312coded 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 Director had erroneously evaluated the Petitioner's eligibility as an advanced degree professional despite her only claiming exceptional ability; AAO reserved the underlying EB-2 classification issue entirely. Petitioner cited two non-precedent EB-1 AAO decisions on appeal, which AAO distinguished as non-binding and involving a different classification. AAO also declined to reach Petitioner's prong 3 argument and her regulatory argument under 20 C.F.R. 656.3 regarding entrepreneurs filing labor certifications for themselves, since prong 1 failure was independently dispositive.

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. 103.3
8 C.F.R. 103.3(c)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer