dismissedJUN262025_10B52032025-06-26 · 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 senior cloud security architect, proposed to continue research designing security architectures, zero-trust cloud frameworks, and AI-driven cyber-fraud prevention tools to protect financial, telecommunications, and e-commerce data, while working for a U.S. technology company.
Field: cybersecurity / cloud security architecture · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner, however, has not offered a specific proposed endeavor for his intended research work as required under Dhanasar”
“it does not support or demonstrate its prospective potential impact nationally, or even globally, or through broader implications rising to a level of national importance”
“their 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 senior cloud security architect for a U.S. company and conducting research on designing security architectures with artificial intelligence for financial services, telecommunications, and e-commerce industries stands to have an impact beyond his prospective employer and clients”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not mention the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or how his intended research would impact his field or otherwise be of national importance”
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
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
2,501coded 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 explicitly distinguishes the Petitioner's endeavor from his employer-specific job, rejecting his argument that SCOPS improperly conflated the two; also addresses and rejects a due-process/abuse-of-discretion argument based on Buletini v. INS regarding totality-of-evidence review. Cites Flores v. Garland on the discretionary nature of NIW adjudication.
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
- 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