dismissedJUL062026_01B52032026-07-06 · 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, a systems engineer, proposed to provide IT, systems engineering, and cybersecurity consultancy services, including establishing her own consulting firm in Florida serving businesses and organizations in critical infrastructure and financial sectors.

Field: systems engineering / IT / cybersecurity · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

USCIS found the Petitioner qualified for the EB-2 advanced degree classification, but the AAO noted the record lacks a credential evaluation confirming foreign-degree equivalency and lacks specific job-duty descriptions for several prior positions, flagging these as deficiencies to address in future petitions without deciding the issue.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the business plan submitted in response to the RFE relies on broad, unsupported claims regarding the potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor”

“the plan does not credibly explain how the endeavor will do so at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“an entrepreneur cannot demonstrate national importance under the first prong solely by opening a consulting firm for those working in a nationally importance occupation.”

“statements and evidence regarding the importance of the relevant industry overall will not demonstrate that a person seeking to work in that industry satisfies the national importance element”

“the language and structure of these letters are similar enough to reduce their credibility.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“relies on broad, unsupported claims regarding the potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“the language and structure of these letters are similar enough to reduce their credibility”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“statements and evidence regarding the importance of the relevant industry overall will not demonstrate that a person seeking to work in that industry satisfies the national importance element”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the record lacks specific descriptions of the Petitioner's job duties in her post-baccalaureate positions”
AAO decision text
degree · discounted
“the record lacks a credential evaluation to demonstrate that the Petitioner's foreign education is equivalent to at least a bachelor's degree”
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
Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts

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

The Petitioner argued USCIS violated Policy Manual guidance requiring a 'two-step' holistic evidence analysis, but the AAO clarified that guidance applies only to exceptional-ability eligibility determinations, not the Dhanasar NIW framework, and rejected the mischaracterization. The AAO also relied on immigration fraud/credibility case law (e.g., Wang v. Lynch, Matter of R-K-K-) regarding similarly-worded third-party letters, an unusual citation choice for an NIW business-consultant case.

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
8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer