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 and digital strategist, proposed to provide Latin music artists in the U.S. with digital marketing and brand-building strategy services, asserting this would strengthen the music industry, promote cultural diversity, and benefit U.S. society.
Field: marketing and digital strategy in the music industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director concluded Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner submitted generic and unsupported assertions regarding the potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her proposed clientele”
“the connection to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is vague given that none of these initiatives specifically discuss the promotion of Latin music specifically”
“The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in her field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the referenced letter merely reiterates similar unsupported assertions provided by the Petitioner”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“there is little description or supporting evidence to demonstrate that her proposed work with Latin artists in the United States would have a wide-ranging national impact”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain how her proposed endeavor would promote this effort, particularly since she did not assert that she was a recipient of this funding”
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
Notable
AAO cited a 5th Circuit case (Flores v. Garland) confirming NIW grant/denial is discretionary in nature; Petitioner's argument leaned heavily on general federal arts/DEI initiatives (Biden Administration funding, executive orders) rather than specific ties to her own endeavor, which AAO found too generic and unconnected.
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 Ho
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