dismissedAUG192024_06B52032024-08-19 · motion_reconsider · 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, a cyber security professional, proposed to work generally in cyber security without identifying a specific employer, client, or business structure.

Field: cyber security · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner asserts that he will work in cyber security, generally, but does not identify whether he will work for a specific company, university, training center, cyber security firm, government entity, or whether he will start his own consulting firm.”

“However, shortages in qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process and is not a consideration for the national importance of a proposed endeavor.”

“Dhanasar requires us to focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake," not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work.”

“As the Petitioner has not identified a specific client or clients or provided details on how his specific work would affect the economy or national security, he has not met his burden to establish that his work rises to the level of national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy”
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
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

2,501coded 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

This is a motion to reconsider following a prior AAO dismissal of the underlying appeal; the AAO's review is limited to whether its prior decision misapplied law or policy, and it reaffirms its earlier prong 1 finding without reaching prongs 2 or 3.

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. 103.5

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer