dismissedAPR192016_01B52032016-04-19 · motion_reconsider · Texas Service Center

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, an oil and gas well field superintendent, sought to continue employment in that field in the United States, asserting that her workplace innovations and practices had influenced the industry nationally.

Field: oil and gas well field operations/engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Prior AAO decision found she established eligibility as an advanced degree professional; this issue was not contested on motion.

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established · dispositive

“the content of those letters did not sufficiently demonstrate such influence so as to establish the Petitioner's eligibility without supporting documentation”

“they did not explain whether the Petitioner was responsible for the creation of those practices or innovations that had been adopted”

“the record did not include documentary evidence to support the statements regarding their adoption”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the content of those letters did not sufficiently demonstrate such influence... without supporting documentation”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“A motion to reconsider contests the correctness of the original decision based on the previous factual record”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Letters conclusory · p3 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Record of success insufficient · p3 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

838coded 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

Petitioner argued that Matter of NYSDOT, particularly its footnote six 'influence on the field as a whole' standard, constituted improperly promulgated substantive rulemaking under the APA and was entitled to no deference because it was issued by a single official; the AAO rejected this administrative-law challenge, citing Talwar v. INS and Chevron deference, and noting Congress's 1999 amendment to section 203(b)(2) as evidence of acquiescence to NYSDOT.

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(c)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer