dismissedJUN252026_04B52032026-06-25 · 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, an information security analyst with a master's degree in cybersecurity operations, proposed to strengthen the cybersecurity posture of U.S. enterprises and critical infrastructure by establishing a cybersecurity consulting firm implementing his own threat-detection and security framework.
Field: cybersecurity / information security · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on his master of science degree in cybersecurity operations.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“In determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession”
“The Petitioner does not reference specific evidence in the record in support of his claims that his proposed endeavor has the potential to impact business, the economy”
“the Petitioner has not explained, and the evidence does not show, how the Petitioner's plan to build his business in phases will produce cumulative, national benefits”
“the letter, on its own, lacks sufficient detail to be persuasive as to the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed consulting services”
“The Petitioner has not established that the benefits of his proposed endeavor will extend beyond his own clients to impact the cybersecurity field, U.S. small businesses, or the U.S. economy more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter, on its own, lacks sufficient detail to be persuasive as to the potential prospective impact”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner has not explained, and the evidence does not show, how the Petitioner's plan to build his business in phases will produce cumulative, national benefits as claimed”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“none of the articles in the record demonstrate the national importance of establishing a cybersecurity consulting firm such as the Petitioner's”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,358coded 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 cited Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) as circuit authority confirming NIW grants are discretionary, and invoked INS v. Bagamasbad to justify declining to reach prongs two and three after resolving the case on national importance alone.
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. 103.5
- Flores v. Garland
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers