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 proposed to establish a cybersecurity, anti-piracy, and anti-counterfeiting consulting business in an underserved Florida community, serving as its manager and digital forensics analyst to provide customized cybersecurity protocols and anti-piracy strategies primarily to small and medium-sized software development and technology businesses, including those expanding into Latin America.
Field: intellectual property and cybersecurity consulting (digital forensics, anti-piracy, anti-counterfeiting) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; AAO did not disturb this finding.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently detailed his specific proposed endeavor or provided evidence demonstrating its potential prospective impact is commensurate with national importance.”
“the Petitioner does not sufficiently detail such cybersecurity, anti-piracy, and anti-counterfeiting solutions or how his endeavor would be different from work typically performed by cybersecurity consulting businesses.”
“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized.”
“merely working in the cybersecurity and intellectual property industries as a digital forensics analyst, or starting a cybersecurity, anti-piracy, and anti-counterfeit consulting business for software developers and technology firms is insufficient to establish the national importance.”
“the growth and importance of an industry are not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework.”
“the recommendation letters from his colleagues mainly attest to his legal experience and to him being valued in the cybersecurity and intellectual property fields.”
“the authors do not detail the proposed endeavor or its potential prospective impact.”
“the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between his proposed work and the claimed results.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the recommendation letters from his colleagues mainly attest to his legal experience and to him being valued in the cybersecurity and intellectual property fields.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the growth and importance of an industry are not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the opinion, however, generally reiterates language and specifics set out in the business plan, and also lacks details for the basis of the financial and staffing projections.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's reliance on his academic achievements and professional experience to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor is misplaced.”
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
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The AAO acknowledged factual errors in the SCOPS denial decision (erroneous references to 'veterinary medicine' and to research publications/citation history that were never submitted), but found them harmless under Shinseki v. Sanders because the Petitioner did not demonstrate prejudice. The decision also explicitly noted that SCOPS found prong 2 satisfied but declined to reach prong 3, and the AAO likewise reserved both prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary given the dispositive prong 1 failure. The AAO drew a direct comparison to the Dhanasar petitioner's hypersonic propulsion research to illustrate the level of specificity and corroboration required, which the present record lacked.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Impact stopped at his business and clients; the projections lacked any basis and the economist's opinion merely restated the business plan; the industry's importance is not the endeavor's.
An expert economic opinion that only restates your business plan adds nothing; the cybersecurity field's importance is not your endeavor's.
moderate
economic_job_creation · national_security · critical_emerging_tech
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers