dismissedSEP192024_12B52032024-09-19 · appeal · Nebraska 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 sought to work in the United States as a marketing specialist focusing on strategic communication planning, graphic design, brand management, digital marketing, and team management tailored to the fashion industry.
Field: marketing (fashion industry) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employers to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative of national importance”
“The Petitioner's professional experience is material to Dhanasar 's second prong-whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor-but they are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
“the record does not support the Petitioner's general assertions with corroborating evidence demonstrating the plausibility of those assertions”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record does not support the Petitioner's general assertions with corroborating evidence demonstrating the plausibility of those assertions”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“they are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance”
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 reserved and declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues.
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
- 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