dismissedFEB252022_01B52032022-02-25 · 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, an experienced marketing manager, proposed to continue working as a marketing director/manager in the U.S., helping domestic and foreign companies with marketing strategy, business expansion, and cross-border commercial transactions, including through his own company.

Field: marketing management/business administration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific marketing management services rather than the national importance of marketing management or the marketing manager position”

“the Petitioner's statements and business letters do not sufficiently show that his proposed endeavor of serving as a marketing manager stands to sufficiently extend beyond his present or potential employers”

“Neither the Petitioner's statements nor the business letters mention any potential job numbers, demonstrate how his proposed endeavor would impact unemployment levels, or detail any revenue benefits”

“the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's marketing manager position would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“do not sufficiently show that his proposed endeavor of serving as a marketing manager stands to sufficiently extend beyond his present or potential employers”
AAO decision text
other · ignored
“we will not consider this evidence for the first time on appeal as it was not presented before the Director”
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

2,589coded 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 Petitioner attempted to argue post-pandemic economic urgency as evidence of national importance, which the AAO did not credit. New assessment evidence submitted for the first time on appeal was excluded under Matter of Soriano/Obaigbena. The decision explicitly states each independent basis (though only prong 1 was actually analyzed) would support dismissal alone.

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.

Matter of L-A-C-
Section 291 of the Act

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer