dismissedMAY152024_04B52032024-05-15 · 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, a sales director, proposed to continue working as a sales director directing sales teams, setting goals, analyzing data, and developing training programs for organizations' sales representatives.

Field: sales/business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner has not explained logistically how she would act as a "sales director" for multiple companies simultaneously.”

“Here, the Petitioner has not described how her employment as a sales director will have a broader impact on the field of U.S. business.”

“these generalized statements focus on the sales field and do not explain how the specific endeavor's impact will extend beyond her partner companies to the broader business sphere”

“the appeal brief does not then cite to any evidence to support these blanket statements”

“he neglects to explain how the proposed endeavor impacts the business field beyond the individual corporations the Petitioner would partner with”

“we find that the record does not establish that her proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond her partner companies to affect the region or nation more broadly”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner does not explain how this evidence is relevant to national importance it points to the Petitioner's past accomplishments, not the specific endeavor's potential impact”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“he neglects to explain how the proposed endeavor impacts the business field beyond the individual corporations the Petitioner would partner with”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“these reports do not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or how it would have broad implications in the business field”
AAO decision text
awards · discounted
“the Petitioner does not explain how this evidence is relevant to national importance it points to the Petitioner's past accomplishments”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“the letter is dated July 20, 2022, after the date of the petition's filing. A petitioner must meet all the eligibility requirements of the petition at the time of filing.”
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
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

2,501coded 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

The Petitioner argued on appeal that the Director imposed 'novel substantive and evidentiary requirements' but the AAO rejected this as insufficiently specific under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(v). The AAO also faulted the Petitioner for failing to explain how she could logistically serve as 'sales director' for multiple partner companies simultaneously, and discounted a supporting letter as post-filing evidence.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
8 C.F.R. 103.3
Flores v. Garland
Matter of L-A-C-
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer