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 with over 15-20 years of experience, proposed to continue working as a marketing manager for U.S. companies, helping them explore international markets, design marketing strategies, and expand cross-border business, particularly with Latin American markets.
Field: marketing management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal. Exceptional ability classification deemed moot.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner did not establish how the documentation shows the national importance of his specific endeavor.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of providing marketing services stands to sufficiently extend beyond his potential or futuristic employers or clients”
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate or further explain how his endeavor would somehow influence employment figures, to support his assertions”
“Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that his proposed endeavor has national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“the evidence relates to the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Notable
The Director had found prong 1 (substantial merit) satisfied and only failed prongs 2 and 3, but the AAO reversed course sua sponte on appeal, finding prong 1's national importance component unmet and disposing of the case on that alternate ground without reaching prongs 2/3, explicitly noting the dismissal rests on 'independent and alternate' bases.
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)
- INA 291
- 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