dismissedJUL312023_03B52032023-07-31 · 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 proposed to operate his own cybersecurity consulting business, serving as Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), developing information security programs and policies to protect enterprise systems from internal and external threats.
Field: cybersecurity/information security · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his business, future employers and future clientele to impact the cybersecurity field or U.S. economy more broadly”
“he does not sufficiently identify, analyze or discuss the nature of the specific work the Petitioner will perform within his prospective endeavor”
“the submitted letters do not provide sufficient clarity regarding the national importance of the specific endeavor”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify specific [prospective] contributions or their impact in the field have little probative value.”
“the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized”
“he has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where the company operates is economically depressed”
“being employed in a STEM field does not automatically show eligibility for a national interest waiver”
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his services as a CISO operating his own consulting business rather than the national importance of cybersecurity technologists”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify specific [prospective] contributions or their impact in the field have little probative value.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“he does not sufficiently identify, analyze or discuss the nature of the specific work the Petitioner will perform within his prospective endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise acquired through his academic pursuits and prior employment relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
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
- 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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
AAO explicitly declined to address 'other deficiencies' in the opinion letter 'for the sake of brevity,' and expressly rejected the argument that STEM field employment alone establishes national importance, citing USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2).
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-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers