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 counterterrorism and security expert with military/security agency experience, proposed to use his expertise to strengthen U.S. homeland security, potentially by consulting for agencies like USAID, DHS, or FEMA, or continuing employment with his current foreign-headquartered employer.
Field: counterterrorism/security management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and the AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree (master's degree in security management).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he did not provide a detailed explanation and documentation to identify and describe the specific endeavor(s) that he would pursue”
“generally describing broad areas of experience and knowledge and simply stating the Petitioner might support or consult with federal agencies is insufficient”
“he does not discuss in sufficient detail how his employment with . . . demonstrates both substantial merit and national importance”
“his proposed employment is in a field (security) that is both of substantial intrinsic merit and national in scope”
“the Petitioner's reliance on the professor's conclusion that a petitioner may meet the first Dhanasar prong based on the substantial intrinsic merit and national scope of a particular field is misplaced”
“the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's consulting projects would reach the level of 'substantial positive economic effects'”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the submitted letters do not provide sufficient information regarding the specific endeavor(s) that the Petitioner will engage in”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the professor's letter is not probative towards establishing the Petitioner's eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise acquired through his employment relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
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
Notable
The AAO criticized an expert opinion letter for improperly conflating the vacated NYSDOT 'intrinsic merit/national in scope of the field' test with the Dhanasar first prong, which requires focus on the specific proposed endeavor rather than the general field.
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.
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Poursina v. USCIS
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