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 found and serve as CEO of a California-based software company developing behavioral-biometric technology (analyzing mouse movement, typing cadence, and navigation patterns) to detect suspicious account activity and fraud for clients nationwide.
Field: information technology / fraud detection software · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found, and AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record in general is "vague" is an accurate characterization.”
“The Petitioner's business plan in the records consists of arbitrary and unsubstantiated financial estimates that cast doubt on the reliability and sufficiency of the plan”
“the arbitrary and unsubstantiated claims in the business plan in general, and its financial estimates more specifically, cast doubt on its reliability and sufficiency”
“much of the evidence the Petitioner submitted addresses the generalized importance of the industry and not the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“arbitrary and unsubstantiated financial estimates that cast doubt on the reliability and sufficiency of the plan”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“provide generalized information regarding information technology, but are silent on the Petitioner”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter focuses on how the Petitioner 'will work in an area of substantial merit and national importance,' rather than articulating [the specific endeavor's broader implications]”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the record does not resolve the inconsistent information regarding whether the company would operate ... or out of the Petitioner's residence”
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
- 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
Notable
AAO found multiple unresolved inconsistencies regarding the company's business address (residential address vs. a claimed 'federally distressed community' ZIP code vs. a leased virtual office), which it treated as casting doubt on the reliability of the business plan generally under Matter of Ho. The decision also emphasizes that STEM-field status alone does not establish national importance, citing USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(4).
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 Ho
- 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