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 advance cybersecurity and application security in the United States through a holistic approach integrating digital and physical security measures, including penetration testing, open-source security contributions, consulting, nonprofit advocacy, and collaboration with government agencies such as CISA.
Field: cybersecurity / application security engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO both concluded the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree (Master of Science in Cybersecurity and Information Assurance).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not shown that his specific proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer and his future projects to impact the cybersecurity field”
“The determination of national importance does not focus on the importance of one's field or industry in general, but 'focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake.'”
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner or his planned projects, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor.”
“the record does not include corroborating evidence showing the claimed 'billions of dollars in transactions' or the extent to which other organizations throughout the field stand to use his specific cybersecurity services.”
“The letters from R-Z-, B-C-, N-W-, C-R-, J-P-G-, C-M-J-, and Dr. A-H- do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work offers broader implications”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner or his planned projects, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work 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 - business plan · discounted
“Unsupported assertions and speculation have no evidentiary value and are insufficient to establish a filing party has satisfied their burden of proof.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“both post-date the filing of the petition . . . would not establish his eligibility at the time of filing, they do not assist him in establishing that he meets the requirements set forth in the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- degree · credited
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
- 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The AAO found substantial merit under prong 1 but denied on national importance alone, making prong 1 partially satisfied. The Petitioner's post-filing establishment of a consulting company and a 501(c)(4) nonprofit were explicitly rejected as untimely under the time-of-filing rule. SCOPS' decision contained minor factual errors (wrong occupation/field references) that the AAO characterized as harmless error. The AAO also noted that letters of support were more relevant to prong 2 than prong 1, redirecting them without crediting them under either prong.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show his specific proposed endeavor's prospective impact extended beyond his employer to the broader field or economy at a nationally important scale.
Define a concrete endeavor with specific deliverables and corroborate claimed scale/impact via independent, endeavor-specific evidence—not general field articles or skill-focused letters.
vague
critical_emerging_tech · government_interest · economic_job_creation · field_advancement
person_focused
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