dismissedSEP232024_08B52032024-09-23 · 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, a cybersecurity engineer, proposed to continue working in business and national-security-focused cybersecurity, combining programming, network security, and data management skills to mitigate cyberattacks, with a long-term goal of starting his own consulting firm.
Field: cybersecurity engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“None of the articles or reports specifically mention the Petitioner, his work, or any government interest in the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”
“the letters lack sufficient explanation as to what specific impact the endeavor would have and why it would be nationally important”
“Without evidence showing any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, the Petitioner has not shown that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- media · discounted
“the documents provide only general background information on these subjects and the wider importance of the cybersecurity field”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters lack sufficient explanation as to what specific impact the endeavor would have and why it would be nationally important”
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
- 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
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
Petitioner argued the Director's decision was 'arbitrary and capricious' and mischaracterized the record; AAO rejected this and also addressed a harmless scrivener's error regarding the RFE referencing an unrelated field.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of O-R-E-
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