The Petitioner founded a cybersecurity academy in Florida through which he intended to serve as CEO and head consultant, offering onsite and online seminars and customized cybersecurity consulting services to individuals and small/medium businesses.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

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

“the Petitioner's business plan does not elaborate on its employment and financial projections, as they are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved.”

“the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact the field of cybersecurity, the nation's cybersecurity initiatives, national security, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “does not elaborate on its employment and financial projections, as they are not supported by details showing their basis”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “they only reference job creation or industry growth insofar as several authors indicate they have discussed the possibility of doing work”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “refer generally to the importance of cybersecurity and STEM fields and do not reference the Petitioner”

  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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO expressly distinguished evidence relevant to Dhanasar prong 2 (skills, prior work, customer interest) from prong 1 national-importance analysis, noting the Petitioner conflated the two; case resolved entirely on prong 1 with prongs 2 and 3 reserved.

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.

• Flores v. Garland
• 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