dismissedAPR042024_05B52032024-04-04 · 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 proposed to create a consulting company advising U.S. businesses on cybersecurity risk management, strategy, and regulatory compliance, while also presenting lectures and workshops to promote STEM and cybersecurity careers.
Field: information security / cybersecurity · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner's personal statements provide generalized projections that are not specific and detailed enough to establish the potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor.”
“The Petitioner's projection of creating seven jobs does not demonstrate a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or support that her proposed endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects.”
“Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the cybersecurity field generally, rather than her specific proposed endeavor.”
“Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the use of the Petitioner's experience will reach beyond benefitting her own company and clients or have broader implications within the field of cybersecurity.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner has not supported these assertions with sufficient independent, objective evidence”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters describe the Petitioner's achievements as having benefitted her employers or being key to the company, rather than describing achievements that had broad implications”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the report does not specifically discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“While the statement identifies cybersecurity threats as critical, the evidence provides general information and does not focus on the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”
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
2,501coded 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 includes a footnote stating that even if it had reached prongs two and three, it would still have dismissed the appeal, since the Petitioner presented no new evidence on appeal beyond what the Director already found deficient.
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)
- Buletini v. INS
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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