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, proposed to continue providing strategic guidance in marketing, advertising, business management, and marketing analysis to help U.S. companies improve their business strategies.
Field: marketing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Here, the nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is unclear.”
“the Petitioner has not clearly explained her endeavor beyond generally continuing her career in the United States.”
“she did not elaborate on whether she would carry out her endeavor by starting her own company, as a consultant to other companies, or as an employee of a company.”
“The Petitioner has also not provided sufficient details about her intended projects, such as an operational plan, a timeline, or quantifiable business metrics.”
“she had not established that the reach of her proposed endeavor extended beyond the single, individual company that employed her.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“she has not provided sufficient details about her intended projects, such as an operational plan, a timeline, or quantifiable business metrics”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
The AAO declined to consider evidence and claims submitted after the initial filing (e.g., the RFE-submitted revised professional plan addressing COVID-19 adaptation and racial disparities work), citing Matter of Katigbak and Matter of Izummi as barring material changes to the petition after filing. The decision also cites Flores v. Garland for the proposition that NIW adjudication is inherently discretionary.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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