dismissedSEP132023_07B52032023-09-13 · appeal · Texas Service Center

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 sought to create and manage a cybersecurity technology company providing multi-factor authentication services for IT systems access control, aiming to reduce cyber-attacks and create some U.S. jobs.

Field: cybersecurity technology / multi-factor authentication · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO found Petitioner categorically ineligible for EB-2 as either advanced degree professional (insufficient work experience letters lacking job descriptions) or individual of exceptional ability (failed multiple exceptional-ability criteria including experience letters, certifications, salary evidence, and recognition letters).

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The record does not convincingly demonstrate a potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's endeavor rising to a level of national importance.”

“The record does not sufficiently illuminate the significance of the Petitioner's part-time contractual hiring plans to overall economic activity in any given area or field.”

“The letters' authors are not industry experts in cybersecurity.”

“Neither provides any meaningful analysis of the endeavor's broader implications or potential prospective economic impact rising to the level of national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

resume experience · discounted
“the work experience letters contained in the record are not sufficient to evaluate whether the Petitioner has gained more than five years”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“The evidence in the record does not demonstrate the certifications are related to performing the overarching duties of the Petitioner's profession”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters contain vague statements about the writers' impressions of the Petitioner's positive work attributes”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“The record does not sufficiently demonstrate how and to what effect wider adoption of multi-factor authentication would impact the field.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“documentation the Petitioner has submitted focuses on their individual accomplishments and expertise when attesting to the national importance”
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
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

2,501coded 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 first found the Petitioner categorically ineligible for EB-2 classification under either advanced degree or exceptional ability tracks, then separately analyzed and dismissed on Dhanasar prong 1 (national importance) despite the Director having found substantial merit satisfied; AAO expressly reserved prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary given prong 1 failure, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach alternate issues.

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. 103.5
8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
Matter of Caron Int'l
Matter of L-A-C-
Matter of Y-B-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer