dismissedJUL182024_04B52032024-07-18 · 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 proposed to work as a marketing specialist providing marketing, communications, user-experience, and trade-marketing services to small and medium-sized U.S. companies, while also lecturing/mentoring marketing professionals and pursuing connectivity solutions for healthcare access.
Field: marketing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to establish the services she intends to provide as a marketing specialist would extend beyond the specific company or organization she is employed by.”
“she has not sufficiently explained or demonstrated how these undertakings offer original innovations to advance, or otherwise have broader implications in, the field of marketing”
“our focus is on the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake rather than the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work.”
“the record lacks sufficient evidence to substantiate the overall prospective impact of these undertakings and therefore is insufficient to establish her proposed endeavor as a marketing specialist has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the statement lacks sufficient corroborative detail and probative weight to establish the methodology has broader implications in the field of marketing.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“beyond naming the methodology, the expert speaks primarily about the importance of marketing in general and does not discuss how the methodology is or has been innovative”
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
2,501coded 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's professional plan included a distinct proposal to develop medical connectivity solutions for underserved populations, but AAO treated this as an unsubstantiated generalized assertion alongside the marketing claims.
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. 103.3
- Matter of L-A-C-
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