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 and product development professional in the beauty/cosmetics industry, proposed to continue developing and marketing beauty products for U.S. companies, leveraging her experience with the Latin American beauty market to help U.S. companies expand into that market.
Field: cosmetics/beauty industry marketing and product development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner established EB-2 eligibility as an advanced degree professional based on foreign equivalent bachelor's degree plus five years progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's initial proposed endeavor was generally vague and conceptual”
“She did not specifically identify the product she sought to develop and promote as the subject of that endeavor at the time of filing”
“the record does not demonstrate that the potential prospective impact of her work for a particular employer or with a specific product or brand would be on a broad enough scale”
“we question the reliability of this impact analysis”
“the issue of whether the Petitioner's skills are relevant within her field goes more to the question of whether she is well positioned”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“it is unclear how the impact analysis arrived at the figures it includes as they are not based on a specifically identified product”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“that claim is not supported by empirical evidence or any other persuasive details regarding the specific impact”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“a discussion of the Petitioner's skillset is more relevant to a consideration under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“they do not specifically pertain to the Petitioner or her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
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
- 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 found the petitioner's business plan/economic impact analysis unreliable in part because its financial projections were based on a specific product/employment she did not obtain until nearly a year after filing, violating the time-of-filing eligibility rule; AAO also noted the referenced 'business plan' could not be corroborated as no document by that name existed in the record, only an 'Economic Impact Analysis.'
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Katigbak
- 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