As VP of Marketing and Communication for a company providing automation solutions for the apparel, textile, and furniture industries, the Petitioner leads marketing strategy, promotes existing digital/automation technologies to customers, and previously coordinated a company PPE task force during COVID-19.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employer or its customer base to impact her field or the U. S. textile industry 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 for our nation”

“The issue here, however, is not the importance of technological advancements in general or the industry in which she will work”

“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show...national importance”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the issue here is not the importance of technological advancements in general or the industry in which she will work”

  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
• 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 withdrew the Director's finding on substantial merit (crediting it) but still found national importance unmet under prong 1; deemed prongs 1 and 2 abandoned on appeal for lack of direct challenge, yet nonetheless substantively addressed prong 1's national importance component and found it dispositive; prong 3 expressly reserved.

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.

• 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