dismissedMAR252025_12B52032025-03-25 · appeal · Nebraska 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, a senior software engineer, proposed to use cloud computing, data storage, data processing/analysis, and cybersecurity methods to develop enterprise-level network security architecture and cloud-based software solutions for his employer.
Field: software engineering / network security and cybersecurity · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's endeavor has national importance.”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render a proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the economic implications of its operations would be attributable to the Beneficiary's projects”
“many of the letters are from former or current colleagues who discuss the Beneficiary's past achievements, knowledge, skills, and abilities, which relate to the second prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“many of the letters are from former or current colleagues who discuss the Beneficiary's past achievements, knowledge, skills, and abilities”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the Petitioner cannot rely on its revenue and impact within the field to claim the Beneficiary's work is nationally important”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render a proposed endeavor nationally important”
AAO decision text - patents · ignored
- citations publications · ignored
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
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 cites a January 2025 USCIS Policy Alert (PA-2025-03) amending the Policy Manual's national importance guidance, applying it alongside Dhanasar to reject employer-specific and field-importance arguments; the appeal turned entirely on prong one with prongs two and three expressly reserved.
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
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
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