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, a software engineer, sought to continue work in economic decision support systems and big data analytics as a scientist/consultant and via launching his own IT company, including developing cloud security systems for businesses using major cloud platforms.
Field: software engineering / economic decision support systems and big data analytics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor rather than the general importance of cloud security and data analytics technologies”
“the advisory opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details of the proposed endeavor and why it would have national importance”
“the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from being an independent business owner would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
“the record does not show through supporting documentation how the Petitioner's endeavor...stands to sufficiently extend beyond his own company”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these documents...reflect dates after the issuance of the Director's RFE”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“these documents...reflect dates after the issuance of the Director's RFE”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“provides an overly vague recitation of the Petitioner's reputation and abilities”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“repeats much of the information the Petitioner already provided in his resume without adding sufficient independent analysis”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Notable
AAO rejected as after-acquired evidence a business plan and investment contracts/letters of intent dated after the RFE was issued, citing Izummi/Katigbak/Bardouille for the rule that eligibility must be established as of filing and cannot rest on facts arising later.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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