The Petitioner, a marketing manager with 16-18 years of experience, proposed to work as a marketing and business development specialist/consultant, helping U.S. companies with sales and marketing strategies and advising on cross-border business expansion between the U.S., Brazil, and Latin America.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“she has not offered sufficient, specific information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her specific proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of providing marketing and business development services stands to sufficiently extend beyond her potential or futuristic employers or clients”

“the Petitioner does not demonstrate how her specified proposed endeavor, either working fo r any other company, would somehow influence those figures”

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

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• resume experience · discounted

  “Eligibility must be established at the time of filing.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “she has not offered sufficient, specific information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her specific proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

  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
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor

Notable

The AAO noted that Petitioner's post-filing employment with a new employer could not be considered under Matter of Katigbak/Izummi/Bardouille, as eligibility must be established at time of filing. NYSDOT is cited only historically as the vacated predecessor framework, not applied as the operative test.

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 Bardouille
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
• The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
• The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
• The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
• The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution