dismissedAPR112025_02B52032025-04-11 · appeal
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 continue working as a Data Engineer for Chevron in the energy industry, working on data integration, migration, and related enterprise deployment projects.
Field: data engineering in the energy industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record is not clear as to what the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor actually entails, aside from continuing in her current employment, and associated projects.”
“The record does not show through supporting documentation how her endeavor sufficiently extends beyond her prospective clients or employer, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“the letter does not explain how they have broader implications for our country.”
“Here, the Petitioner has not shown that her endeavor aims to advance STEM technologies and research or has broad implications rather than providing her limited professional services by working within a STEM profession.”
“the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from her specific employment would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter repeats the same arguments addressed above pertaining to the importance of various topics and subjects without showing the wider effect”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
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 notes SCOPS had conceded substantial merit but not national importance; decision applies STEM-specific policy guidance distinguishing broad research/technology endeavors from limited professional services or classroom teaching.
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
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