dismissedAUG122024_09B52032024-08-12 · 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, an information security analyst and manager, proposed to continue working in the U.S. providing cybersecurity risk-reduction services, system management, and training to clients and industry professionals.
Field: information security / cybersecurity · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the referenced evidence focuses on the Petitioner's experience and expertise and relate to Dhanasar' s second prong”
“he does not provide any detailed information as to what specific economic benefits his proposed endeavor would generate and how they would be accomplished”
“he has not established with specific, probative evidence that his proposed work has national or industry-wide implications, beyond his own career and future clients.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the referenced evidence focuses on the Petitioner's experience and expertise and relate to Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“he does not claim, and the record does not include any evidence specifically indicating that he will operate his own business or hire U.S. workers”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the referenced evidence focuses on the Petitioner's experience and expertise and relate to Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“he continues to rely on general industry reports and articles and government initiatives addressing the need for improving the U.S. cybersecurity”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
2,589coded 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 declined to reach the advanced-degree classification issue (waived per footnote citing Matter of Garcia and Matter of J-Y-C-) and the exceptional-ability final merits and Dhanasar prongs 2 and 3, since prong 1's failure was dispositive; AAO also cited Brasil v. DHS on the nonreviewability of NIW discretionary determinations.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
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