dismissedNOV252020_02B52032020-11-25 · 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 marketing professional specializing in IT, proposed to continue working in marketing/sales for a technology company's retail, travel, and transportation divisions, while also assisting other companies with IT/technology consulting and positioning.
Field: marketing/IT consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“This projected shortage of workers in the U.S. IT industry is not sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of any particular marketing or IT consulting work proposed by the Petitioner.”
“we conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond D and her clientele to impact the marketing field, IT industry, or U.S. economy more broadly”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects”
“the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“we will consider information about this position to illustrate the capacity in which she intends to work”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“A shortage of qualified professionals alone does not render the work of an individual IT marketing specialist nationally important”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“The Petitioner's claims regarding her education, skills, knowledge, and job experience relate to the second prong”
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 AAO dismissed on prong 1 alone, expressly declining to reach prongs 2 and 3, and noted that labor-shortage arguments are more properly addressed via the labor certification process or under the prong 3 balancing test in a footnote.
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.
- INA 203(b)(2)
- 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