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 security engineer, proposed to continue work refining and advancing cybersecurity vulnerability scanning technologies, including AI/machine-learning-based vulnerability detection and supply chain security, to strengthen cybersecurity defenses.
Field: cybersecurity engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO agreed Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on his master's degree from Rice University.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not offered a specific proposed endeavor for his intended research work as required under Dhanasar”
“The proposed endeavor, as described, and the evidence in the record do not support the Petitioner's assertions that the potential impact of his endeavor extends beyond his employer”
“his overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his specific undertaking of working as a security engineer for a U.S. company and conducting research developing and refining cybersecurity vulnerability scanning technologies stands to have an impact beyond his potential employer and clients”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not identify or address his specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“mostly explains his previous research, makes broad claims that he would conduct research”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the revised endeavor cannot retroactively establish eligibility”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- degree · credited
Where this case turned
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO emphasized that Petitioner's request for evidence reply and appeal presented materially new projects/employer (post-filing) rather than clarifying the initial endeavor, invoking 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1)'s eligibility-at-filing rule and suggesting a new petition would be required for such changes.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Buletini v. INS
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
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