dismissedAPR232025_09B52032025-04-23 · appeal
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 network security architect employed by an IT services company, proposed to develop network architecture solutions addressing cyber threats such as DDoS attacks and ransomware, including a pending patent-related design.
Field: network security / cybersecurity architecture · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“being employed at an information technology services company as a network security architect, whose work involves the development of network architecture solutions addressing cyber threats, is insufficient to establish the national importance”
“the Petitioner has not established that his endeavor alone, implemented for”
“the Petitioner's availability as a cybersecurity expert and a shortage of cyber security experts in the United States does not render the proposed endeavor nationally important”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated any specific economic impact attributable to his particular role as a network security architect”
“the evidence does not show that his proposed work stands to offer economic benefits beyond his employer and their clientele”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner's experience and abilities in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - patents · discounted
- other · discounted
“does not render the proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 explicitly separates industry-shortage/economic-impact arguments as insufficient without endeavor-specific evidence, and treats employer's high-profile clientele as irrelevant absent showing the petitioner's own tasks have national-level impact; declined to reach prongs 2 and 3.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
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