dismissedMAR212025_04B52032025-03-21 · 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 sought to work in cybersecurity management, developing AI-powered threat detection and zero-trust architecture strategies to protect critical infrastructure and mentoring other cybersecurity professionals.
Field: cybersecurity management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
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 at a level commensurate with national importance”
“the Petitioner does not explain how his contribution would be considered substantial compared to the sizeable and established cybersecurity industry currently operating in the United States”
“the execution of a proposed endeavor by a STEM professional does not necessarily make the endeavor nationally important”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
- degree · discounted
“the execution of a proposed endeavor by a STEM professional does not necessarily make the endeavor nationally important”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner does not explain how his contribution would be considered substantial compared to the sizeable and established cybersecurity industry currently operating in the United States”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
The AAO found the Director's mixed prong findings (merit yes/national importance no under prong one; well-positioned yes under prong two; benefit no under prong three) irrelevant once prong one failed, and expressly reserved opinion on prongs two and three, citing INS v. Bagamasbad for declining to make advisory findings.
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
- INA 203(b)(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