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, an admissions and marketing director for a university, proposed to continue recruiting and enrolling international students and later claimed he would also work through his own admissions/marketing consulting business.
Field: university admissions and marketing / education administration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he did not offer sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rose to the level of national importance”
“the record did not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stood to sufficiently extend beyond his university and its future students to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record did not reflect the benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter does not explain how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor falls within the STEM fields of business analytics or financial analytics”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“We will not consider new eligibility claims or evidence for the first time that was not presented before the Director”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“the evaluation report does not support his assertion”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“do not address the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
Petitioner argued his endeavor fell within newly-added STEM OPT fields (business/financial analytics) per a January 2022 DHS press release, but AAO rejected this as unsupported and reiterated that STEM classification alone does not establish national importance. AAO also declined to consider a newly asserted personal business venture and related invoices/executive summary as impermissible new facts under Matter of Soriano/Izummi/Bardouille, though it noted the underlying endeavor (admissions/marketing) remained unchanged and still failed prong one.
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. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Section 291 of the Act
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
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