The Petitioner, a sales manager with over 25 years of experience in tourism and hospitality sales, proposed to continue working as a sales manager in the U.S., promoting cross-border tourism and business between the U.S. and Latin America.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“she has not offered sufficient, specific information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her specific proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”

“the record contains evidence regarding general information of the relationship between immigrants and the economy, the talent shortage of sales managers, the role of sales in business, and the importance of sales and tourism.”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of serving as a sales manager stands to sufficiently extend beyond her potential or futuristic employers”

“she did not further elaborate and provide specific details to corroborate her assertions”

“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her providing specific sales management rather than the national importance of the sales manager position”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• other · discounted

  “she has not offered sufficient, specific information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her specific proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”

  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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO expressly frames its first-prong finding as an 'independent and alternate basis' for dismissal, despite not reaching prongs 2 or 3, and explicitly distinguishes the second-prong-type evidence (experience, expertise) the Petitioner repeatedly emphasized from the first-prong national-importance inquiry.

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