The Petitioner, a business analyst, proposed to establish an AI-driven cybersecurity business protecting individuals' and companies' online accounts from account takeovers, serving as its CEO and software developer.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not sufficiently detailed his specific proposed endeavor or provided evidence demonstrating its potential prospective impact is commensurate with national importance”

“he does not sufficiently detail such cybersecurity technology solutions or how his endeavor would be different from work typically performed by cybersecurity businesses”

“the growth and importance of an industry are not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework”

“merely working in the cybersecurity industry as a software developer with artificial intelligence technologies or starting a cybersecurity business which leverages artificial intelligence is insufficient”

“The record, however, does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”

“it does not follow that an individual providing cybersecurity work for individual and business clients has national importance”

“without sufficient documentary evidence that his proposed job duties... have a potential broader impact, rather than benefiting his business and his proposed clients”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “mainly make general statements attesting to his technical skills used for his current and former employers”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “makes general statements about his business' potential impact... but does not quantify the proposed endeavor's expected impact”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · ignored

  “We will not consider this new evidence for the first time on appeal, as it was not presented to SCOPS”

  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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO declined to consider new recommendation letters submitted for the first time on appeal, citing Matter of Soriano; declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as prong 1 was dispositive.

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 E-M-
• 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