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 planned to open his own company providing IT consultancy services, including cybersecurity and computer networking advice, to clients such as government and state agencies, utility companies, and the finance industry.
Field: information technology / computer networking and cybersecurity · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed exceptional ability but established only one of the six regulatory criteria (education); employer letters lacked exact dates and did not show progressive full-time experience, certificates were belated training courses, no evidence of union membership documentation, and no evidence of recognized achievements/awards was substantiated.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the benefit of his services will extend beyond his company and those who engage him for his services”
“the record does not reflect that his services are different, better, or cost less than other IT services”
“he has not sufficiently explained how his work in computer networking and cybersecurity would produce an impact rising to the level of national importance”
“As the Petitioner has not provided a sufficient foundation or corroborating details to support the growth projections, we conclude that they have little probative value”
“the Petitioner and [redacted] improperly rely upon the importance of the industry and profession as sufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“these letters do not meaningfully discuss the proposed endeavor or provide specific details supporting its national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the letters do not contain exact dates for the Petitioner's employment”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters do not meaningfully discuss the proposed endeavor or provide specific details supporting its national importance”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“training course completions do not establish the Petitioner has a license to practice the profession or a certification for a particular occupation”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- business plan · discounted
“we conclude that they have little probative value”
AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
- awards · discounted
“he provided little evidence of receipt of the award or any explanation of how it constitutes recognition”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“we conclude the Petitioner's new business plan constitutes a new set of facts and a material change in the proposed endeavor”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO rejected the Petitioner's new business plan submitted on appeal as an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi/Michelin Tire, declining to consider it, though it noted in a footnote that even the new plan would not establish national importance for similar reasons.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Otiende
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show national importance: reliance on general IT/cybersecurity field significance and unsubstantiated growth/job projections, not endeavor-specific scaled impact; also failed exceptional-ability EB-2 threshold and impermissibly changed business plan on appeal.
Tie the specific endeavor—not the industry—to quantifiable, corroborated national-scale impact (clients, revenue basis, differentiation) from filing, and avoid material post-filing changes.
vague
critical_emerging_tech · stem_positive_factor · economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · government_interest · national_security
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution