dismissedSEP302024_13B52032024-09-30 · 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 operate a cybersecurity consultancy company developing blockchain-based anti-fraud solutions using AI, machine learning, and encryption to combat financial fraud.
Field: cybersecurity / enterprise architecture and data warehousing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found petitioner qualified as advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“This material, however, does not provide sufficient insight into the Petitioner's plans to work as a provider of cybersecurity services.”
“it does not speak to how the Petitioner's individual endeavor to nm a consultancy company would have a potential prospective impact of national importance”
“the letters do not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner's statements within the record discuss the importance of cybersecurity in terms that are wide-ranging and seemingly applicable to any institution”
“he has not explained how his individual company would have a national-level impact to "mitigate the prevalence of fraudulent activities that currently plague the financial industry."”
“the Petitioner's statements generally speculate that the creation of his company would create jobs in the United States, but he did not provide independent evidence”
“the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has the significant potential to broadly enhance societal welfare”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“This material, however, does not provide sufficient insight into the Petitioner's plans to work as a provider of cybersecurity services.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“The record does not include a plan or other indication of how the Petitioner would operate a company”
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 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 explicitly explains that job-performance letters relate to prong 2, not prong 1, illustrating the cross-prong analytical distinction; case decided entirely on national importance without reaching prongs 2 or 3.
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 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