dismissedMAR112025_06B52032025-03-11 · 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 intended to serve as CEO of a company providing cybersecurity packages and security-related consulting services to businesses of various sizes, particularly in security-intensive sectors.
Field: cybersecurity · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found the Petitioner qualified for underlying EB-2 classification.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clientele to impact the cybersecurity industry or otherwise impact economic initiatives more broadly”
“the fact that a proposed endeavor is carried out by a STEM professional does not necessarily make the endeavor nationally important”
“the support for these figures has not been provided”
“he has not shown that the services performed by the company would represent a significant share of the cybersecurity market or otherwise have a national impact”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the support for these figures has not been provided”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
- resume experience · discounted
“the fact that a proposed endeavor is carried out by a STEM professional does not necessarily make the endeavor nationally important”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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
AAO expressly reserved opinion on prongs two and three, deciding solely on prong one national importance grounds; cited Flores v. Garland (5th Cir.) regarding discretionary nature of NIW decisions.
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
- 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