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 Beneficiary, a senior software engineer, sought to continue developing and securing cloud-based e-commerce and digital payment platforms for his employer, applying AI/ML and cybersecurity technologies.
Field: software engineering / AI/ML, cloud computing, cybersecurity, e-commerce payment platforms · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“shortages in a field are not alone sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's endeavor stands to have an impact on the broader field”
“the Petitioner does not explain how the company's ability to safeguard its customers' payment information would have an impact of national importance”
“the record does not contain evidence to substantiate that the Beneficiary's work as a senior software engineer would result in the realization of the overarching positive outcomes anticipated by the Petitioner”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not provide any information concerning the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“does not provide sufficient insight into ... how the Beneficiary's specific intent ... would benefit the United States on a national level”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner has not explained how the proposed endeavor would position the United States ahead of other nations or achieve or retain technology leadership”
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
Notable
The decision's caption states 'Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision' but the body text attributes the denial to 'the Director of the Nebraska Service Center'—an internal inconsistency, likely a template/OCR error, leading to an 'unknown' service_center coding. The AAO agreed with the Director that substantial merit was established but found national importance lacking, reserving both the threshold EB-2 eligibility question and prongs 2-3 as unnecessary to the dispositive prong-1 finding.
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
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
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