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 data protection and technology specialist, proposed to develop and implement strategies for secure, inclusive, and interoperable digital-identity systems in order to protect privacy, reduce fraud, and foster innovation.
Field: data protection / digital identity / cybersecurity · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director and AAO agreed the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree based on her MBA and LLM degrees.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“evidence of the importance of the industry does not equate to evidence of the impact of the proposed endeavor.”
“the evidence in the record does not support a determination of national or global implications within her field.”
“evidence of the Petitioner's past experience, even if successful, does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- business plan · discounted
“the evidence in the record does not support a determination of national or global implications within her field.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the author does not discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor and how it will impact the economy.”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“this analysis is more appropriate in a prong two discussion on if the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · 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
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“evidence of the importance of the industry does not equate to evidence of the impact of the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Record of success insufficient · p1 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
Notable
The AAO explicitly reallocated several of the Petitioner's arguments (e.g., citation impact, past success) from prong one to prong two, holding they were 'more appropriate in a prong two discussion' even though it ultimately declined to reach prong two at all, illustrating the cross-prong drift the coding scheme is designed to capture.
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 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