dismissedJUN132025_02B52032025-06-13 · 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 software developer, proposed to design and implement novel software, tools, and infrastructure to enhance network security in distributed cloud computing environments, including an AI-powered SSH protocol and an automated access auditing system.
Field: software development / network and cloud security · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong”
“they do not address how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national or even global implications within the field of computer science”
“pertain to the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which the Petitioner proposes to work, which is not the relevant question”
“The record does not establish that, as a software development engineer, the Petitioner would have the authority to hire "20-30" ne[w] employees”
“the record does not establish relevant details such as where those hypothetical employees would work, the duties they would perform, and the wages they would be paid”
“the record does not establish that the benefits of the Petitioner's proposed software would extend beyond his employer and its business partners, clients, and customers”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- media · discounted
“pertain to the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which the Petitioner proposes to work”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they bear minimal probative value, and we need not address them further”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“casts doubt on the reliability and sufficiency of both his statements and the remaining evidence in the record”
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- 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
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 found the Petitioner's claims of hiring authority ('may hire a team of 20-30') not credible because his supervisor, not he, appeared to hold actual hiring authority, and used this credibility issue under Matter of Ho to discount the reliability of his other evidence.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of V-K-
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