dismissedAUG272024_09B52032024-08-27 · 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 subsea field engineer with a mechanical engineering degree and over ten years of experience, proposed to continue working for an oil and gas company in Texas installing subsea components and directing drilling operations.
Field: subsea/petroleum engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the matter here is not whether these initiatives, as well as whether petroleum drilling is nationally important”
“the record does not indicate how his specific endeavor, separate from the work he is performing with ______ would accomplish these important goals”
“the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how his particular proposed endeavor would have any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation”
“the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from his services or position would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters provide nearly identical substantive information and while the letters detail the Petitioner's skills in subsea engineering, they do not show the broader impact”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the matter here is not whether these initiatives, as well as whether petroleum drilling is nationally important”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
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
- 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 cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) for the proposition that NIW denials are discretionary, and expressly states each ground is an independent and alternate basis for dismissal even though only prong 1 was analyzed.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
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