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 operate a cybersecurity company in Florida providing development, consulting, and training services related to protecting critical infrastructure control systems for private and public sector clients.
Field: cybersecurity · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · ignored
“The Director's subsequent denial did not acknowledge additional evidence submitted relating to the proposed endeavor, including a business plan.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
“the Director stated, without explanation, that an expert opinion letter was 'not probative'”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO withdrew and remanded the denial not because the Petitioner failed to meet the Dhanasar prongs, but because the Director's decision lacked sufficient analysis of the evidence for all three prongs, including inaccurate factual statements (e.g., claiming no evidence the Petitioner ever owned a business despite record evidence of a Colombian cybersecurity business) and unexplained conclusory dismissals of an expert letter as 'not probative.'
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
- Flores v. Garland
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Case was remanded because the Director's decision on all three Dhanasar prongs lacked reasoned analysis of the record, including business plan and expert letters, precluding meaningful appellate review.
Ground national importance in the specific endeavor's projected scale (jobs, clients, sector-wide effect), not merely the general importance of the industry; ensure adjudicators document evidence-based reasoning.
moderate
national_security · critical_emerging_tech · field_advancement
mixed
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