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 conduct a social marketing campaign aimed at Latin American communities in the United States, while operating as a multi-level-marketing distributor/consultant recruiting and training other distributors to sell consumer products.
Field: social/international marketing and financial advising · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Work experience letters did not describe job duties and referenced experience predating the baccalaureate degree; record also failed to show the occupation required a bachelor's degree for entry.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the prospective impact would be localized to the prospective customers in the local community”
“The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the United States.”
“He has not provided data or studies establishing how his proposed endeavor will impact Latin American communities in the region”
“the record here does not establish that the Petitioner's role as a social marketing advisor would have an impact on populations other than an indeterminant number of individual clients”
“based on the evidence ofrecord, we cannot determine the merit ofthe Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the work experience letters are certifications of the Petitioner's previous employment; they do not include descriptions of the Petitioner's job duties”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“The plan does not contain specifics regarding forecasts for his specific business”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“he has not provided documentation to demonstrate how his company's promotion of multi-level marketing arrangements to potential distributors will benefit these populations”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO affirmed the Director's threshold EB-2 denial and additionally withdrew the Director's favorable finding on substantial merit, concluding the record could not even establish merit, not just national importance; petitioner's endeavor was tied to a multi-level-marketing distributorship.
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 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