dismissedJUN112024_04B52032024-06-11 · 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, an international commercial manager, sought to work for U.S. companies managing large accounts, sales strategies, and international trade relationships, particularly with Latin American markets, claiming this would boost profitability, job creation, and the U.S. economy.

Field: international commerce/sales management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; AAO did not disturb this finding.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the prospective impact of her endeavor would be limited to her prospective employers and their customers”

“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”

“the Petitioner has not provided a sufficient explanation of the prospective impact directly attributable to her proposed work”

“the industry or customer base a petitioner will serve alone is not sufficient to establish national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not establish her prior impact to the industry or the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“a petitioner must establish eligibility for the benefit they are seeking at the time the petition is filed”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“much of the content of the expert opinion letters lacks relevance with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“she primarily relies on general industry reports, rather than the prospective impact attributable to her specific endeavor”
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

AAO rejected as evidence job offers submitted post-filing, noting the 'job offers' were actually recruiter emails inviting application sent after filing, and the employment verification letter/updated resume reflected employment begun after filing, both improper under Matter of Katigbak's eligibility-at-time-of-filing rule.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Flores v. Garland
Matter of Caron Int'l
Matter of D-R-
Matter of Katigbak
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer