dismissedMAR252024_01B52032024-03-25 · appeal · Texas 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 provide strategic marketing and data analytics consulting services to financial services companies, designing tailored marketing campaigns and helping institutions understand consumer behavior and data.

Field: marketing/data analytics for financial services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO reserved the issue of EB-2 classification (advanced degree/exceptional ability) as unnecessary to decide given the dispositive prong 1 failure; noted unresolved question of whether the master's-equivalent was an academic degree or professional certification.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the petitioner has not shown her proposed endeavor in this case stands to sufficiently extend beyond an organization and its clients or the individuals the beneficiary would serve to impact the industry or field more broadly.”

“These statements address the collective impact of a particular specialty, but they do not show that the work of one individual in that specialty has national importance.”

“The Petitioner has not shown that, or explained how, her provision of marketing services to a limited number of clients has broader implications that rise to the level of national importance.”

“background materials about the overall importance of data analytics in the banking industry do not show the national imp01tance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter does not explain how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor has national importance”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“These materials do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor specifically, or indicate how the work of one marketing consultant has national importance”
AAO decision text
degree · ignored
motion resubmission · discounted
“This letter was not part of the record at the time of the denial, and therefore could not have influenced the Director's decision.”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

1,581coded 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

Second AAO decision in this case after a prior remand instructing the Director to address underlying EB-2 classification; Director again failed to decide that issue, and AAO again reserved it as unnecessary given the dispositive prong 1 failure. AAO expressly declined to consider a new expert letter submitted on appeal because it postdated the denial and was not material.

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
Flores v. Garland
Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show her specific endeavor (custom marketing/data analytics for particular clients) had impact beyond those clients to the broader industry or field.

Transferable lesson

Tie the specific proposed work, not just the occupation/field, to concrete broader industry or national-level effects beyond your own clients.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_growth_generic · us_competitiveness · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer