dismissedMAR072023_04B52032023-03-07 · 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, an information security specialist with 14+ years of IT experience, proposed to work in the United States as an information technology and cybersecurity consultant, contributing to software engineering, architecture, information security, and strategic planning for companies.

Field: information security / cybersecurity · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found, and AAO agreed, Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree (bachelor's plus 5+ years progressive experience).

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“He has not provided documentary evidence that his proposed job duties as an information technology consultant and an information security specialist would impact the fields of information technology and cybersecurity more broadly rather than benefiting his employer or their clients.”

“Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employee U.S. workers or otherwise offers "substantial positive economic effects" for our nation contemplated by Dhanasar.”

“While the documents indicate the importance of technology and cybersecurity to maintain and improve U.S. competitiveness and national security, they do not specifically show the government's interest in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”

“Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that any increase in the company's revenue attributable to his consulting services stands to substantially affect economic activity regionally or nationally.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“While we acknowledge the Petitioner's claims, he has not provided evidence to substantiate them.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“they do not specifically show the government's interest in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
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
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

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

Petitioner cited presidential executive orders and the National Strategy for Critical and Emerging Technologies to argue national importance; AAO found these showed general field importance but not government interest in his specific endeavor.

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)
INA 203(b)(2)
Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show his specific consulting endeavor—rather than the IT/cybersecurity industry generally—had documented broader impact or substantial economic effects beyond his employer/clients.

Transferable lesson

Provide concrete, quantified evidence tying the specific proposed endeavor (not the industry) to national-scale economic, security, or employment impact.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

national_security · us_competitiveness · economic_job_creation · critical_emerging_tech

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer