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 work as an IT professional/computer and information systems architect, variously described as innovating in cybersecurity to protect consumer identities from theft and fraud, and later as teaching IT and cybersecurity to train future cybersecurity professionals.
Field: cybersecurity and information technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Although the Petitioner has provided varying descriptions of his proposed endeavor, we will adjudicate the appeal with the understanding that he intends to seek employment as an IT professional.”
“the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor of working as an IT professional stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employers to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative of national importance.”
“The relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“The Petitioner, however, does not provide sufficient details to support these projections or adequately explain how he plans to create employment opportunities for others”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The Petitioner shifted his description of the proposed endeavor multiple times throughout the proceeding (solution architect, computer/information systems architect, cybersecurity innovator, and finally cybersecurity/IT teacher); the AAO adjudicated under the general framing of 'IT professional' due to this inconsistency.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to establish national importance under prong one: shifting endeavor descriptions and unsupported claims of broad economic/societal impact lacked corroborating evidence.
Fix a single, concrete endeavor early and support national-scale impact claims with independent, quantified corroborating evidence, not assertions.
vague
public_health · government_interest · economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an assistant professor of Arabic, proposed to continue teaching Levantine-Modern Standard Arabic to U.S.
- The Petitioner, a secondary school teacher, proposed to develop and implement an open educational resource program to ex
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a consulting company in Missouri to design and implement a nationally adaptable tea
- The Petitioner, an arts, drama, and music teacher and entrepreneur, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of excep
- The petitioner, a mathematics teacher with 17 years of experience, proposed to operate a company offering online math tu