dismissedJUL032025_01B52032025-07-03 · appeal
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 auditor with a master's in cybersecurity and information assurance, proposed to develop AI-driven cybersecurity and fraud-detection tools and services tailored to banks and financial institutions, eventually forming a consulting firm.
Field: cybersecurity / IT auditing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not provide corroborating evidence in support of these projections or demonstrate that such future staffing levels would result in substantial economic benefits”
“It therefore does not appear that the benefits of using the Petitioner's cybersecurity products and services would extend beyond the businesses and institutions the Petitioner would serve.”
“the letter does not adequately discuss the proposed endeavor, making only broad statements about the Petitioner's intent to develop AI-powered cybersecurity solutions”
“Without evidence showing any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, the Petitioner has not shown that the benefits to the regional or national economy”
“neither the report nor the articles specifically mention the Petitioner, his work, or any government interest in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not provide corroborating evidence in support of these projections”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter does not adequately discuss the proposed endeavor, making only broad statements”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“neither the report nor the articles specifically mention the Petitioner, his work, or any government interest”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“would be considered under the second prong to determine whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the expert opinion letters do not specifically mention the Petitioner's endeavor and therefore do not support assertions regarding the proposed endeavor's national importance”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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
This decision arises from SCOPS revocation of a previously approved I-140 under INA 205, not an initial denial, though the AAO treats the resulting appeal identically to a denial appeal. The AAO explicitly declines to reach the third prong given the dispositive first-prong failure.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
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