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, a fraud investigator for a large technology employer, proposed to continue developing and applying support vector machine and machine learning models to detect and prevent fraud and cybercrime on her employer's platforms.
Field: fraud investigation / machine learning / cybersecurity · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed with SCOPS that the petitioner established she qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on her bachelor's and master's degrees.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“her proposed endeavor would extend beyond her employer and its clients to have a potential prospective impact on her field”
“The importance of an industry or field is not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework.”
“The Petitioner makes broad claims, without sufficient corroborating evidence, that her work has the potential to advance her fields”
“the letters and her statements have not detailed or established her plans to introduce the claimed novel and innovative advancements”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters and her statements have not detailed or established her plans to introduce the claimed novel and innovative advancements”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“they do not discuss the Petitioner's particular work or innovations having the claimed broader impact”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the opinion's focus on the importance of the cybersecurity industry to the economy and societal welfare... are misplaced”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
Where this case turned
- 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
- 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
Notable
The AAO expressly benchmarked the petitioner's evidence against the facts of Matter of Dhanasar itself, contrasting her generalized claims with the original Dhanasar petitioner's documented hypersonic-propulsion research and government funding to illustrate the specificity required for national importance.
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-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod