dismissedAPR292025_11B52032025-04-29 · 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 sought to work as CEO of a cybersecurity consulting company he would establish, aiming to help small and medium-sized businesses identify, mitigate, and prevent cyber threats.
Field: cybersecurity · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The evidence submitted by the Petitioner does not establish his proposed endeavor would operate on such a large scale as to have a national impact on the cybersecurity industry.”
“he did not establish his specific proposed endeavor will have substantial national implications or have a broader impact beyond the individuals directly served by his company”
“the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor would have broader implications to the overall fields to establish its national importance”
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections”
“The Petitioner has not explained how his proposed employment metrics and revenue would have impact beyond his business's area of intended operations.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the inquiry in the first prong of the Dhanasar framework focuses on 'the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake'”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the inquiry in the first prong of the Dhanasar framework focuses on 'the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake'”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections”
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 →
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers