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 and advertising specialist and marketing director of her own company, providing media monitoring and media intelligence services to small and midsize enterprises.
Field: marketing and advertising · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we concluded the Petitioner did not show how her proposed endeavor would have broader implications in the marketing field or that her endeavor would have a wide-reaching impact in the United States”
“the evidence did not demonstrate how her work would broadly enhance societal welfare at a level commensurate with national importance”
“her endeavor would offer the regions where her company will operate or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, or tax revenue”
“we conclude that the evidence, including the evidence on motion, does not identify the broader implications of her specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the evidence, including the evidence on motion, does not identify the broader implications of her specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner had not shown that her proposed endeavor would have broader implications in the marketing field”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the evidence, including the evidence on motion, does not identify the broader implications of her specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute "new facts."”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO expressly declined to reach the underlying exceptional-ability classification (threshold EB-2) and prongs 2 and 3 of Dhanasar, resting the decision solely on prong 1's national-importance failure, both on the original appeal and again on combined motions; extensive procedural discussion of motion-to-reopen/reconsider standards (Abudu, Coelho, Chawathe) precedes the substantive analysis.
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. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of L-A-C-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show her marketing endeavor had broader implications for the field or substantial economic effects reaching national importance under Dhanasar prong one; motions presented no new facts or legal error.
For prong one, quantify and document the endeavor's specific national-level or field-wide impact (jobs, economic effects, industry influence)—generic business growth claims are insufficient.
vague
economic_growth_generic · field_advancement
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers