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 IT sales manager, proposed to continue working as a sales manager in the IT/cybersecurity field, focusing on expanding American businesses' presence in Latin American markets and selling cybersecurity solutions.
Field: IT sales / cybersecurity sales · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found bachelor's degree plus progressive experience equivalent to a master's degree; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“This claim does not show how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, in particular, would be of national importance.”
“the Petitioner did not establish the wider significance of this beyond benefit to her employer.”
“the Petitioner has not established her proposed endeavor sufficiently extends beyond the company she works for as a sales manager and its clientele”
“A stated intention to work in an important field or industry does not establish the national importance of a proposed endeavor within that field or industry.”
“Rather than provide any specific, corroborated figures, she offered speculative projections.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner did not establish the wider significance of this beyond benefit to her employer.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“her successful employment with a I.T. and cybersecurity companies does not suffice to show that her proposed endeavor has broader implications”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The decision cites the Fifth Circuit's Flores v. Garland for the proposition that NIW adjudication is discretionary, and reserves ruling on prongs 2 and 3 citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach unnecessary issues. The decision inconsistently refers to the Petitioner using both 'she' and 'her' and, once, 'he'/'his', likely an OCR/drafting artifact.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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