dismissedJUL142021_06B52032021-07-14 · 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, a marketing manager with experience in Brazil and Latin America, proposed to continue working for U.S. companies designing marketing strategies, conducting market research, and facilitating cross-border business growth between Latin American and American markets.
Field: marketing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The verbatim language from the O*NET summary report does not establish what the specific endeavor would entail, beyond matching the generalized tasks of positions in the same occupational category”
“The proposed endeavor of marketing benefits the Petitioner's employer(s); however, the record does not establish how the endeavor would have broader implications”
“the record does not establish whether the potential to employ U.S. workers is significant, and whether the potential positive economic effects would be substantial”
“the Petitioner's focus on appeal on the "role and importance of marketing" in general does not address aspects of the specific endeavor”
“The evidence is insufficient to show that [her] proposed endeavor will impact the field more broadly than a a [sic] single employer, client, or project.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“does not establish what the specific endeavor would entail, beyond matching the generalized tasks of positions in the same occupational category”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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
Petitioner used verbatim O*NET occupational summary language to describe the endeavor, which the AAO found generic and insufficient to establish a specific endeavor distinct from the occupational category as a whole. The Director had not addressed the second prong; the AAO also declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, resting dismissal solely on prong 1 national importance.
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.
- INA 203(b)(2)
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