dismissedSEP222021_01B52032021-09-22 · 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, who initially proposed continuing marketing-campaign management for a Brazilian/U.S. advertising agency, later shifted to operating two Florida companies providing marketing/advertising and technology/media development services.

Field: marketing/advertising · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director found, and the AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding the equivalent of an advanced degree.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his companies, future employers, and clientele to impact his field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's marketing projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

“The Petitioner, however, does not adequately explain how these revenue and staffing forecasts were calculated.”

“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner, however, does not adequately explain how these revenue and staffing forecasts were calculated.”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's marketing projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
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
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

1,312coded 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

The Petitioner shifted the nature of his proposed endeavor between initial filing (employee marketing role) and RFE response (ownership of two Florida companies); the AAO evaluated the revised endeavor and found the personal-qualifications arguments improperly conflated with the national-importance inquiry, which belongs to prong two.

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

← Back to the case explorer