A senior security researcher proposed to continue identifying software security vulnerabilities, leading vulnerability disclosure efforts, improving secure development practices, and advising engineering teams and government/public initiatives on cybersecurity.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“We agree with USCIS' conclusion that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, but the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish it has national importance.”

“the record does not show how these activities would extend beyond benefiting the individual organizations that receive his services or implement his findings.”

“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

“Although several authors conclude that the Petitioner' s work "contributes directly to the national interest" or "strengthens America's cybersecurity readiness," these statements are conclusory.”

“the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to the level of national importance.”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not established that the endeavor would have a "a significant potential to employ U.S. workers" or otherwise reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.”

“Without adequate evidence demonstrating any specific U.S. economic impact, job creation, or other significant economic activity directly attributable to his future work, the claims that the endeavor will provide substantial, direct positive economic effects is unpersuasive.”

“the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor and that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States, as required by the first and third prongs”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “these statements are conclusory.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “none of the articles mention the Petitioner or his planned projects or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
• Economic claims unsupported · p3 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis

Notable

AAO treated the national-importance (prong 1) and 'on balance' benefit (prong 3) failures as jointly dispositive, expressly reserving prong 2, and cited Flores v. Garland for the discretionary nature of NIW adjudication.

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
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5
• Flores v. Garland

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