dismissedMAY012025_07B52032025-05-01 · appeal
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, working in IT project management and cybersecurity, proposed to provide services to future employers and customers aimed at improving digital security and IT management practices in the United States.
Field: IT project management / cybersecurity · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS concluded, and AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner established he was an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not support his assertions that his work will result in broader implications to the field, beyond the potential benefits to his immediate employer(s) or customers”
“he does not identify what, if any, cutting-edge technologies and IT management practices he will introduce”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work”
“without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work”
“The decision by SCOPS discussed the business plan and noted it lacked details of the financial projections, specific positions, and numbers of employees”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“it lacked details of the financial projections, specific positions, and numbers of employees”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“a petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain and support with evidence how his proposed endeavor would have a national impact on these broad initiatives”
AAO decision text
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
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
1,358coded 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 expressly adopted and affirmed the Director's decision under Matter of Burbano rather than conducting an independent analysis, and included a footnote citing Flores v. Garland on the discretionary nature of NIW adjudications.
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 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