dismissedMAR292024_01B52032024-03-29 · 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 proposed to work as a cybersecurity director and entrepreneur, providing cybersecurity consulting services to small and medium-sized businesses in the United States.
Field: cybersecurity / information technology consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his customers and employers to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative of national importance”
“he has not presented sufficient evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“makes general assertions that the Petitioner will work in an area of substantial merit and national importance without offering analysis on how the Petitioner's specific endeavor is of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he has not presented sufficient evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“makes general assertions that the Petitioner will work in an area of substantial merit and national importance without offering analysis on how the Petitioner's specific endeavor is of national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- 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
AAO expressly declined to reach threshold EB-2 classification eligibility as well as prongs 2 and 3, resolving the appeal solely on prong 1 national importance, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach unnecessary issues.
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 L-A-C-
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