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 administrator, proposed to work as a marketing consultant/administrator for U.S. companies, developing marketing campaigns and strategies, initially framed around a specific business project and later as general consulting services to multiple companies.
Field: marketing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew Director's finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; her lato sensu MBA certificate was not shown to be equivalent to a degree above a bachelor's, and she did not sufficiently document five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“simply working in, or starting a small business in the marketing field falls short of demonstrating the level of national importance required for this visa classification”
“The Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how her proposed endeavor to work as a marketing administrator has the significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
“A shortage of qualified professionals alone does not render the work of an individual marketing administrator or consultant nationally important under the Dhanasar precedent decision”
“The fact that an individual works in a field that is generally adjacent to the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of their work”
“They do not state, for example, that her past work had broad implications within her field that would be carried over to the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“has not established that her lato sensu MBA course certificate is the equivalent of an academic or professional degree above that of a bachelor's degree”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letter did not include a description of the duties she performed or indicate whether her employment was full-time or part-time”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record does not contain information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to the Petitioner's future work”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“do not offer insight into the national importance of her proposed endeavor to work as a marketing administrator in the United States”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“much of the content of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- contract revenue · discounted
“absent information related to the Petitioner's specific endeavor, the record does not show that the benefits to the regional or national economy... would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO first withdrew the Director's favorable threshold EB-2 finding (advanced degree professional) sua sponte, finding the lato sensu MBA certificate and claimed 'managing partner' experience insufficiently documented, before separately denying on Dhanasar prong 1. The decision also identifies a missing Form ETA 750B/9089 initial evidence requirement as an independent, additional basis for denial.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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