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 cybersecurity risk management specialist with an MBA, proposed to develop and disseminate a procedural risk-management model for protecting organizations from cyberattacks, likely through self-employment or consultancy.
Field: cybersecurity · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 as an advanced degree professional based on her MBA.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“none of these sources discuss the Petitioner or her proposed endeavor specifically”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
“the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first prong”
“The Petitioner also did not provide a business plan or any evidence of establishing or incorporating a business entity.”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this would have an impact outside of her individual clients and customers”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“these sources discuss the topics of cybersecurity and cybercrime in general”
AAO decision text - business plan · ignored
“The Petitioner also did not provide a business plan or any evidence of establishing or incorporating a business entity.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner does not explain how her proposed endeavor would differ from her current work”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO credited the government-agency evidence (CISA, White House, IC3) as establishing substantial merit but explicitly held it insufficient for national importance because it did not discuss the petitioner's specific endeavor; a useful example of the merit/importance bifurcation under prong 1.
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
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