dismissedSEP132023_02B52032023-09-13 · 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 manager in the health consultancy field, proposed to assist U.S. companies and organizations with branding, re-organization, and management to optimize and increase profit and market growth.
Field: marketing/health consultancy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not established how providing his service as a marketing manager in the health consultancy sector stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients to impact the field more broadly”
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work”
“none of them offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend beyond his clients”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“none of them offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend beyond his clients”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“we focus on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
2,589coded 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
AAO explicitly separates industry importance from endeavor-specific importance, reiterating that 18 years of marketing/sales experience and industry reports about marketing's importance are not probative of national importance, which belongs to prong 2 analysis instead.
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)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution