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 computer-security researcher, proposed to continue developing tools and techniques for securing real-world software to improve the security and reliability of consumer devices and services.
Field: computer security · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO agreed, that the petitioner qualifies as an advanced-degree professional based on a PhD in computer science.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record is unclear in how broad the dissemination of his work will be and if it could impact the field or if it would be limited to his employer”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the [Petitioner] proposes to undertake."”
“evidence of the cost of data breaches in the United States is not probative evidence that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have a substantial economic impact”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“evidence of the Petitioner's past experience, even if successful, does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“this too is related to the Petitioner prior work and...is more relevant to Dhanasar's prong two analysis”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“It does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as its focus is on the Petitioner's qualifications and not the endeavor's prospective impact”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“evidence of the cost of data breaches in the United States is not probative evidence that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have a substantial economic impact”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Notable
The AAO agreed with the petitioner that the Director had articulated an overly narrow standard for national importance (requiring integration into a national program or government endorsement), but still affirmed the ultimate denial on the merits, finding the evidence insufficient regardless of the correct standard.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a senior principal biostatistician, proposes to develop innovative statistical and machine-learning meth
- The Petitioner proposed to use advanced deep learning and machine learning models to create efficient, safe, and well-pe
- The Petitioner proposes to advance machine learning methods for the design and optimization of advanced metamaterials an
- The Petitioner, a postdoctoral chemist, proposed to continue developing high-performance materials and novel synthetic m
- The Petitioner proposes to design novel sensor data processing methods and machine learning algorithms for smart wearabl