dismissedJUN092025_03B52032025-06-09 · 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 sought to establish a cybersecurity consulting company in the U.S. providing security strategy design and cybersecurity training/education programs to businesses, educational institutions, and infrastructure entities.

Field: cybersecurity · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”

“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”

“none of the articles mention the Petitioner or his company, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor”

“the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage”

“he does not identify any specific organizations that have been or will be serviced by”

“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner or his company, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”
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 conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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 distinguishes evidence relevant to prong 2 (petitioner's skills/experience, client interest letter) from prong 1's national-importance focus, declining to consider it under prong 1 despite petitioner's framing. Decision cites Flores v. Garland on discretionary nature of NIW grants.

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
Flores v. Garland
INA 203(b)(2)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

The cybersecurity consultancy's claimed national-security and economic impacts were asserted, not evidenced: the expert letter recited Dhanasar's categories without naming served organizations, projections had no basis, and the shortage argument failed; prong one fell.

Transferable lesson

An expert letter that marches through Dhanasar's national-importance categories without concrete specifics is checkbox evidence; name the organizations, mechanisms, and scale, or the claims stay unsubstantiated.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

national_security · critical_emerging_tech · economic_job_creation

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer