dismissedSEP192025_01B52032025-09-19 · appeal
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 lawyer, proposed to provide specialized legal services in privacy and cybersecurity risk compliance, real estate and probate, corporate secretarial compliance, dispute resolution, and intellectual property, aiming to develop scalable compliance and cybersecurity solutions for U.S. businesses.
Field: law (privacy/cybersecurity compliance, IP, real estate/probate) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO agreed the petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”
“merely working in an important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“he did not provide a business plan, or any other plans or projections explaining the expected scope of his intended activities”
“the industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected benefits specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he did not provide a business plan, or any other plans or projections explaining the expected scope of his intended activities”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected benefits specifically attributable to the Petitioner's 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
1,358coded 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
The petitioner supported his national-importance claims with links to industry articles rather than copies of the articles themselves, which the AAO noted in a footnote without further weight given to this evidentiary gap.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
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