dismissedJAN052023_04B52032023-01-05 · combined · 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 business development manager in the cybersecurity sales field, sought a national interest waiver based on claimed revenue growth, job creation, and economic impact from her sales work for clients.

Field: cybersecurity sales / business development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”

“the record did not show the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stood to sufficiently extend beyond her employer or its partners and clientele”

“these projections appear to be little more than aspirations and conjecture”

“the conclusions provided in the EIA offer little support for the actual impact of the proposed endeavor”

“workforce shortages and a high demand for business development managers do not support a finding that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance, as the labor certification process is designed to address these issues”

“she has not provided a sufficiently direct connection between the proposed endeavor and any national initiatives”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“Letters of recommendation and other evidence highlight her contributions... [but do not show the endeavor extends beyond her employer]”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“these projections appear to be little more than aspirations and conjecture”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“the conclusions provided in the EIA offer little support for the actual impact of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“publications concerning recent cyberattacks and threats reinforce the merit and importance of the industry and profession, but not necessarily the importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“this evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is nationally important”
AAO decision text

All 6 evidence items

motion resubmission · discounted
“The evidence provided in support of the motion to reopen does not overcome the grounds underlying our prior decision”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
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
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

1,312coded 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 combined motion to reopen and reconsider following a prior AAO dismissal; the AAO reaffirmed its earlier finding solely on prong one (national importance), declining to revisit prongs two and three. The AAO rejected the Petitioner's request for a side-by-side comparison with the beneficiary in Matter of Dhanasar, noting Dhanasar's facts are not part of this record.

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(a)(1)(i)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
Matter of Coelho

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer