dismissedOCT022025_07B52032025-10-02 · 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, an information security analyst, proposed to develop and deploy a unified cybersecurity framework integrating Data Loss Prevention, Insider Risk Management, and AI, initially for mid-sized financial institutions and later expanded to other sectors and a national model.

Field: cybersecurity / information security · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“it is not clear whether the Petitioner intends to implement his proposed endeavor through I I clients or in another capacity.”

“it appears the benefits of his endeavor would extend to the relevant company and the clients of said company.”

“the determination ofnational importance does not focus on the importance ofthese fields in general, but rather "focuses on the specific endeavor that that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“does not assert or otherwise demonstrate this impact would amount to substantial positive economic effects under this prong.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“do not address the Petitioner's current endeavor to develop a national model cybersecurity framework”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“do not explicitly detail whether he intends to realize his proposed endeavor within his current employment”
AAO decision text

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

2,589coded 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 cited Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) for the proposition that NIW adjudications are discretionary, and rejected the Petitioner's reliance on Executive Orders 14178, 14028, and 14179 as establishing national importance, finding these support general field importance rather than the specific endeavor's importance.

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
8 C.F.R. 103.5
Flores v. Garland
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer