NIW Bearings
dismissedMAR092026_03B52032026-03-09 · appeal · SCOPS 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 Beneficiary, employed by a nonprofit public utility, proposed to provide cybersecurity monitoring for the employer's operational technology environment, including its Energy Management System and Substation Wide Area Network, using security information and event management (SIEM) tools to detect and prevent cybersecurity threats.

Field: electrical engineering / cybersecurity (SIEM/SCADA) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found the Beneficiary qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a master of science degree in electrical engineering; AAO did not disturb this finding.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

the record lacks sufficient probative, credible evidence demonstrating the potential prospective impact of the Beneficiary's specific endeavor as an employee of the Petitioner.
the evidence in the record related to the Petitioner's services, its standards and compliance requirements, and its market share is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's specific endeavor is of national importance.
the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.
the importance of the Petitioner's operations does not necessarily establish the national importance of its employee's proposed endeavor.
the record does not sufficiently demonstrate how the Beneficiary's specific endeavor relates to the Petitioner's overall efforts as an organization to maintain its standards for reliability and to protect against cybersecurity threats.

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • other · discounted
    the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    the evidence in the record related to the Petitioner's services, its standards and compliance requirements, and its market share is not sufficient
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    the record is not sufficiently clear as to how the Beneficiary's specific role relates to the Petitioner's overall cybersecurity management efforts
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    the fact that the proposed endeavor relates to a focused critical and emerging technology (CET) does not demonstrate that the endeavor is nationally important
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Employer-specific benefit · p1"work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
  • Endeavor too vague · p1described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
746coded 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

The petitioner is a nonprofit public utility (not the beneficiary herself), filing on behalf of an electrical engineer in a senior SIEM role. The AAO acknowledged the power grid is critical infrastructure and cybersecurity is a recognized critical and emerging technology, but held that neither the employer's national significance nor the CET designation substitutes for evidence of the specific endeavor's prospective national impact. The organizational chart submitted did not include the beneficiary's position, undermining the employer-specific nexus argument. AAO expressly reserved judgment on prongs 2 and 3 per INS v. Bagamasbad.

Cases in adjacent profiles