The Petitioner, a senior product manager at a data storage and cybersecurity company, proposed to continue his employment leading projects such as an anomaly detection notification system and an ESG/CO2 emissions tracking initiative for his employer's storage products.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not sufficiently clarify his specific proposed endeavor but only emphasizes the importance of the cybersecurity and data protection field.”

“the Petitioner conflates his work with that of the potential national impact of his employer.”

“it is not the size or importance of the industry that establishes national importance, but the potential prospective (in this case economic) impact of the Petitioner's specifically proposed endeavor.”

“The Petitioner did not sufficiently establish how this one project would have a potential prospective national impact on carbon emissions”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• resume experience · discounted

  “his expertise is a consideration under Dhanasar's second prong, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “it is not the size or importance of the industry that establishes national importance, but the potential prospective (in this case economic) impact of the Petitioner's specifically proposed endeavor.”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · credited

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
• 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

The AAO first granted the motion to reopen in part, finding its own prior summary dismissal of the appeal erroneous (brief and evidence had been timely filed), and proceeded to review the appeal de novo—only to dismiss on the merits under Dhanasar prong one, expressly reserving prong two. The decision heavily emphasizes the distinction between an employer's/field's importance and the petitioner's own specific proposed endeavor, and rejects reliance on generalized STEM/cybersecurity policy statements and industry-wide market-size figures as insufficiently specific.

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. 103.5
• Matter of Coelho
• Matter of Ho
• 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