This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance under the first Dhanasar prong. The business plan contained arbitrary financial projections, internal inconsistencies, and unsubstantiated claims that undermined the record's reliability.
The petitioner, a business executive proposing to start a behavioral biometrics fraud-detection software company, sought an EB-2 National Interest Waiver. SCOPS denied the petition, finding the proposed endeavor lacked national importance. On appeal, the AAO agreed: the business plan's revenue projections (200%+ annual growth against a 2% industry growth rate), flat overhead costs despite tripling staff, and conflicting address information across multiple documents collectively undermined the record's reliability. The supporting evidence consisted almost entirely of generalized cybersecurity industry articles and an expert letter that spoke to the field broadly rather than the petitioner's specific venture. Because the record failed the first Dhanasar prong (national importance), the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching the second or third prongs.
What worked: The petitioner successfully established eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, which was undisputed throughout the proceedings.
What failed: 1. The business plan contained arbitrary, internally inconsistent financial projections and staffing plans that cast doubt on the entire record's reliability. 2. Nearly all supporting evidence addressed the cybersecurity/IT industry in general rather than the specific proposed startup's national impact. 3. Conflicting address information across Form I-140, corporate filings, and RFE response raised unresolved material inconsistencies that further undermined credibility.
Takeaway: For NIW petitions based on a startup business, ensure the business plan includes detailed, verifiable financial assumptions grounded in comparable company data, and submit evidence that specifically addresses why your particular venture — not just the broader industry — will have national-level impact. Inconsistencies across filed documents (addresses, staffing, financials) can be fatal even if the underlying idea is meritorious.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-2-NIW criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- The petitioner successfully established eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, which was undisputed throughout the proceedings.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The business plan contained arbitrary, internally inconsistent financial projections and staffing plans that cast doubt on the entire record's reliability
- Nearly all supporting evidence addressed the cybersecurity/IT industry in general rather than the specific proposed startup's national impact
- Conflicting address information across Form I-140, corporate filings, and RFE response raised unresolved material inconsistencies that further undermined credibility.
Completed
I-140 filed
Business executive and prospective CEO of a startup computer software company focused on fraud detection and cybersecurity
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-05-01
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance under the first Dhanasar prong. The business plan contained arbitrary financial projections, internal inconsistencies, and unsubstantiated claims that undermined the record's reliability.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.