dismissedDEC222020_05B52032020-12-22 · appeal · Nebraska 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, a marketing manager, proposed to continue providing marketing services (strategy, digital/social media campaigns, advertising, project consulting) to his employer and various business and individual clients in the United States.

Field: marketing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner did not provide a credential evaluation establishing his foreign bachelor's degree as equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate, and did not demonstrate five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in his specialty at the time of filing.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“This shortage of marketing professionals in the United States is not sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of any particular marketing work proposed by the Petitioner.”

“A shortage of qualified professionals alone does not render the work of an individual marketing manager nationally important under the Dhanasar precedent decision.”

“In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer and future clientele to impact the field of marketing or U.S . economy more broadly”

“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's marketing projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“the Petitioner did not provide an academic credential evaluation to establish his diploma's equivalency to a U.S. baccalaureate degree”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“he has not demonstrated at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in his specialty at the time he filed the petition”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“The record does not include documentation of the Petitioner's communications with Apple or the company's interest in hiring him.”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“These business proposals do not project future staffing levels or business activity at a level that stands to provide substantial economic benefits”
AAO decision text
media · credited

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
Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

2,501coded 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

The AAO's footnote notes that Dhanasar vacated the prior NYSDOT precedent; the decision expressly treats the threshold advanced-degree failure and the prong-one national-importance failure as independent, alternate bases for dismissal.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
INA 203(b)(2)
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer