NIW Bearings
dismissedJUN202024_07B52032024-06-20 · 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, a cybersecurity and automation manager, proposed to work as a consultant supporting public and private companies across industries to promote development in cybersecurity and information protection.

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

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“However, the letters do not provide specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's work has impacted the field of cybersecurity or led to the creation of an information security policy or change in existing policy or practice.”
“Nor does the record include a detailed business plan or other description of how the Petitioner plans to advance his proposed endeavor.”
“The Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently demonstrated that his work has served as an impetus for progress in the development or change of cybersecurity policy.”
“The Petitioner's assertions, without evidence to substantiate them, do not establish his eligibility.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letters do not provide specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's work has impacted the field of cybersecurity”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “he has not shown that this work renders him well-positioned to advance his specific proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · credited
  • business plan · discounted
    “Nor does the record include a detailed business plan or other description of how the Petitioner plans to advance his proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “he provides little to no information on how his endeavor will operate”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
  • Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
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

Petitioner argued Director abused discretion by not addressing every piece of evidence individually (citing Buletini) and by imposing 'arbitrary requirements'; AAO rejected both arguments, holding reasoned consideration of totality of evidence suffices and the Director's noted deficiencies did not constitute novel legal standards.

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)
  • Buletini v. INS
  • Flores v. Garland
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed prong 2: letters and personal statement recited job duties and general success but lacked specific plan, progress, or evidence he is well-positioned to advance his stated consulting endeavor.

Transferable lesson

Submit a concrete business/operational plan and letters that directly analyze the specific proposed endeavor's progress and impact, not just credentials or job performance.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

critical_emerging_tech · us_competitiveness

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer