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.
Petitioner, an entrepreneur involved with cyber-intelligence firm N- and its offshoot O-, sought to continue developing and marketing cybersecurity/surveillance technology to government, law enforcement, and business clients in the United States.
Field: cybersecurity and technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B),(D),(E),(F) but failed to establish (B) ten years progressive full-time experience and (E) membership in a professional association; did not meet the required three of six criteria, and in the final merits determination the derogatory Entity List and litigation evidence further undermined the claim.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“N-'s addition to the Entity List indicates that the U.S. government has determined that N-'s products have been developed, marketed and used in ways that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States”
“casts doubt on his contention that the prospective endeavor has "broad implications for U.S national security and [will] help the nation combat terrorism and rival the technology of competing world powers."”
“Because the evidence of record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit or that it is of national importance under the first prong”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“P-'s unsupported assertions that N- is "an invaluable partner to the United States," and that "leading intelligence and law enforcement agencies [in] the United States use this technology" do little to illuminate the Petitioner's plans”
“the record does not contain evidence to establish that (1) U.S. government entities are prospectively interested in N-'s products; or (2) progress has or will be made towards achieving the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
“Failure to submit requested evidence which precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the [petition].”
“It is not apparent how the Petitioner will effectively market N-'s cybersecurity products to U.S. government and law enforcement entities given these commercial transaction constraints.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established · dispositive
“The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not show that there is an urgent national interest in his specific proposed endeavor, or that he will offer contributions of such value, that over all they will benefit the nation, even if other U.S. workers were available. We agree.”
“these positive factors when considered in the context of the lack of sufficient evidence about how he will prospectively pursue his endeavor... are insufficient to demonstrate on balance, that it would be beneficial to the United States”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“do little to illuminate the Petitioner's plans for N-'s business operations here”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“he has not documented the relationship, between 0- and [entity], therefore, we cannot determine how [] contractual arrangements... are indicative”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“recent media articles do not substantiate his assertions regarding his EB-2 eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letters do not provide sufficient detail regarding the dates of employment or job duties”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record does not contain sufficient documentary evidence about G- to demonstrate its eligibility requirements for membership or its mission”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“N-'s addition to the Entity List indicates that the U.S. government has determined that N-'s products have been developed, marketed and used in ways that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States”
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
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
- Strong positive factor rejected · p3 — the STEM critical-and-emerging-technology factor was claimed but not accepted on the record
- Urgency not established · p3 — no reason shown why the benefit cannot wait for labour certification
Notable
Unusual case: AAO issued a NOID during appeal pendency based on newly discovered derogatory evidence (Commerce Department Entity List designation of petitioner's company for supplying spyware used against journalists/activists, plus litigation by tech firms against the company) which the petitioner never rebutted. AAO expressly incorporated this derogatory information into every prong of its analysis, dismissing on multiple independent alternate grounds (threshold exceptional ability, all three Dhanasar prongs).
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of R-A-M-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
N-'s BIS Entity List designation for supplying spyware used against journalists/activists, plus petitioner's failure to respond to NOID, undermined claims of national importance, exceptional ability, and being well-positioned.
Address adverse government findings (e.g., export-control listings, litigation) directly with objective evidence; unresolved derogatory information triggering an NOID is fatal if unanswered.
moderate
national_security · economic_growth_generic · us_competitiveness
person_focused
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