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 sales and marketing officer, sought to continue providing sales and marketing services to a U.S. employer and future clients, claiming his proven track record would benefit the U.S. economy.
Field: sales and marketing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not establish he held a U.S. baccalaureate or foreign equivalent degree (advanced degree professional claim), and did not meet at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability, including deficiencies under the membership criterion where his certificates did not show membership in a qualifying professional association.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“his statements reflected his intention to provide valuable sales and marketing services for his U.S . employer and future clients”
“the record did not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's sales and marketing projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“This transcript does not support the Petitioner's contention that he earned a U.S. baccalaureate degree, or foreign equivalent”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“he did not provide evidence identifying him as a member of these organizations”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner does not provide new facts related to our prior decision or any new documentary evidence”
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
Notable
This is a combined motion to reopen/reconsider following a prior AAO appellate dismissal (In Re: ID# 9046651, Jan. 27, 2021); the Petitioner raised an advanced-degree-professional claim for the first time on appeal, which AAO found unsupported by new evidence on motion. AAO also noted the Petitioner failed to include the required statement regarding judicial proceedings under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(iii), an independent procedural deficiency.
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(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of O-S-G-
- 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