NIW Bearings
dismissedAPR202023_01B52032023-04-20 · appeal · 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, a production engineer, proposed to continue high-end research and development and large-scale business analytics work in the oil and gas industry.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found insufficient progressive post-baccalaureate experience, but AAO reversed, finding the petitioner established at least five years of progressive specialty experience and thus qualified as an advanced degree professional.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“But the Petitioner does not directly state what his future work would involve, other than that he will work in the field of production engineering in the oil and gas industry.”
“However, the relevant question is the importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor and not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work.”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.”
“We find that the record is insufficient in describing the Petitioner's specific future endeavor and its broad impact on the oil and gas industry and dwells only on the Petitioner's past work and achievements.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • media · discounted
    “The record similarly contains documents showing the value of the oil and gas industry but lacks specific evidence of benefits and advances his proposed endeavor will make.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “reference letters that speak about the Petitioner's experiences with his former employers.”
    AAO decision text
  • citations publications · discounted
    “The Petitioner misunderstands the nature of precedent decisions when he asserts that approvals are required for any petitioner with more impact than Dr. Dhanasar.”
    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
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

Petitioner argued AAO must compare his impact directly to Dr. Dhanasar's, submitting Dhanasar's own citation counts to minimize his impact; AAO rejected this as a misunderstanding of precedent. Petitioner also unsuccessfully invoked the vacated NYSDOT 'national in scope' standard.

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
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer