The Petitioner, a sales manager with a background in telecommunications, appliances, and computer sales, intended to work as an IT sales manager in the United States, performing B2B sales, sales team leadership, customer solutions, and cybersecurity guidance.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“This information does not show how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, in particular, would be of national importance.”

“The issue, however, is the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor, not the collective or aggregate importance of all businesses or the entire IT industry.”

“he stated that his proposed endeavor will increase profits, leading to job growth and greater tax revenue, but he did not provide any specific, conoborated figures.”

“The Petitioner did not establish the wider significance of this figure beyond benefit to his employer.”

“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.”

“The overall importance of a given industry or field does not suffice, by itself, to show that employment within that industry or field has national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “The Petitioner did not establish the wider significance of this figure beyond benefit to his employer.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “The issue, however, is the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor, not the collective or aggregate importance of all businesses or the entire IT industry.”

  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

Notable

AAO explicitly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues once dispositive ineligibility is found on prong 1.

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(k)(2)
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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