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 computer network architect, proposed to develop and implement scalable, automated network management and cybersecurity software systems to improve operational efficiency and strengthen U.S. telecommunications and critical infrastructure.
Field: computer network architecture / telecommunications cybersecurity · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO agreed the Petitioner's MS in Information Systems qualified her as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“While they attest to the importance of these topics, these articles do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
“the letters largely praise the Petitioner's past work but do not specifically address her proposed endeavor”
“the letters do not detail how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor would have such a broad implication on her field”
“this does not establish the national importance of her work as it does not speak to the prospective impact of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“these articles do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters largely praise the Petitioner's past work but do not specifically address her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
Where this case turned
- 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
AAO expressly withdrew SCOPS' application of a 'national in scope' NYSDOT-derived standard as inconsistent with Dhanasar, yet still affirmed the denial on national importance grounds, distinguishing between evidence of a field's importance versus the specific endeavor's prospective impact.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Evidence (government articles, colleague letters) addressed field importance and petitioner's expertise generally, not the specific proposed endeavor's national-level prospective impact.
Tie corroborating evidence directly to the specific proposed endeavor's prospective scale of impact, not just field significance or personal credentials.
moderate
critical_emerging_tech · government_interest · field_advancement
person_focused
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