dismissedDEC072023_01B52032023-12-07 · 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 sought to work as CEO and marketing specialist for his two marketing consulting businesses, aiming to develop novel technology-integrated marketing and advertising strategies and services.
Field: marketing consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not provide 'evidence to show the potential impact of his claimed 'novel' products and programs in the field of marketing or what the 'novel' programs or products would exactly entail.'”
“the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support his claims that his business' activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to Florida or the United States.”
“merely working in the marketing consulting field or starting a marketing consulting business to support the industry is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized.”
“the record lacks evidence showing that creating nine direct jobs and generating almost one hundred thousand dollars in tax revenue over a five-year period rises to the level of national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence based on these recommendation letters to demonstrate the prospective impact”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any of the Petitioner's claimed economic impacts specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
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
- 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
AAO found the Director's RFE and denial were procedurally adequate despite Petitioner's abuse-of-discretion argument; recommendation letters were explicitly characterized as belonging to prong 2 analysis even though the case was decided solely on prong 1, illustrating cross-prong evidence categorization.
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
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers