dismissedJAN162024_02B52032024-01-16 · appeal · 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, an IT network and cybersecurity engineer, proposed to continue working in his field in the U.S., protecting companies' data, systems, and networks from cyber threats and sharing his expertise with U.S. companies.

Field: information technology / network and cybersecurity engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the general importance of the industry or occupation in which the individual will work”

“it does not demonstrate how performing day-to-day network and cybersecurity engineering services for U.S. companies as contemplated by the Petitioner's proposed endeavor rises to a level of national importance”

“the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his future U.S. employer or its clientele”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“does not demonstrate how performing day-to-day network and cybersecurity engineering services... rises to a level of national importance”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text

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
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

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

The Petitioner's expert opinion letter and USCIS STEM policy guidance arguments were both rejected as conflating general field/industry importance (cybersecurity, 5G, STEM talent initiatives) with the specific proposed endeavor. The AAO expressly declined to reach the third Dhanasar prong, treating the first-prong failure as dispositive and stating each ground would independently support dismissal.

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.

Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer