dismissedJAN272021_03B52032021-01-27 · 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 sales and marketing officer, proposed to continue working in sales and marketing—conceptualizing and implementing marketing campaigns, directing sales strategies, and managing client relationships—for a U.S. employer.

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

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner failed to establish advanced-degree professional classification (occupation not a listed profession, no qualifying degree evidence) and failed to establish exceptional ability (did not meet at least three regulatory criteria; membership/certificate evidence insufficient).

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

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

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects”

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

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“he did not submit evidence of this degree”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“he did not provide evidence identifying him as member of these organizations”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters do not explain the national importance of his proposed work under the Dhanasar's first prong”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text

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
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

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 decision dismissed the appeal on three independent alternate grounds: failure to establish advanced-degree professional status, failure to establish exceptional ability, and failure to meet Dhanasar prong 1, with the AAO explicitly declining to reach prongs 2 and 3.

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)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
INA 203(b)(2)
Poursina v. USCIS
Section 291 of the Act

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show the specific sales/marketing endeavor's impact extended beyond his employer and clientele to the field or economy at a nationally important scale.

Transferable lesson

Define the endeavor with concrete scope and quantify prospective national-level impact (jobs, economic effects, field-wide implications), not generic industry importance.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer