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 continue working as a product manager, first for a cosmetics company and then for an insurance-focused company, developing products and projects for his employer.
Field: marketing/product management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director did not address this issue, but the AAO found the Petitioner's two master's degrees sufficient to establish EB-2 eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner conflates his proposed endeavor with his current employment.”
“There is nothing inherent to the proposed endeavor of employment as a product manager that would have substantial positive economic effects on a particular industry or small businesses in the United States.”
“broad statements about the national importance of a particular field are insufficient to demonstrate that a petitioner's specific proposed endeavor meets the first prong.”
“the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of substantial merit, but that he has not established its national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- recommendation letter · discounted
“neither letter supports the Petitioner's claims of potential job creation.”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“broad statements about the national importance of a particular field are insufficient to demonstrate that a petitioner's specific proposed endeavor meets the first prong.”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“it does not indicate that this would have any broader implications for the national economy”
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 acknowledged multiple drafting errors in the Director's decision (incorrect gender references, an erroneous mention of 'patients,' and an inconsistent concluding statement) but found them immaterial to the outcome since the Director had repeatedly found the national importance prong unmet.
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)
- Poursina v. USCIS
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