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 and information technology industries, proposed to continue developing sales strategies, cybersecurity solutions, and training services for U.S. companies to increase sales, revenues, and job creation.
Field: cybersecurity/business development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The record indicates that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employer or its partners and clientele to impact the cybersecurity industry, information technology field, or U.S. economy more broadly”
“The Petitioner, however, does not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated.”
“she has not shown that the claimed job creation resulting from the projects she will undertake on behalf of her employer are implications of her specific proposed endeavor”
“the record does not show that this undertaking has broader implications for her field, as opposed to being limited to those who participate in her training sessions”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the record does not show that this undertaking has broader implications for her field”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the Petitioner does not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“This information shows that multiple factors and team members contribute to the company's Security Service sales projects.”
AAO decision text - other · credited
Where this case turned
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO credited that the field of cybersecurity has substantial merit but found the specific endeavor lacked national importance because economic/job-creation benefits were attributable to the employer and team (including a Sales Representative and Delivery Representative) rather than solely to the petitioner; extensive EIA and executive-order evidence on cybersecurity policy was treated as establishing field importance only, not endeavor-specific national importance.
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)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- 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