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 geosteering solutions products manager, sought to continue research and development of well-placement and formation-evaluation technologies, including automating geosteering processes and improving integration between geologists and drilling engineers in the oil and gas industry.
Field: geosteering / petroleum engineering (oil and gas) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“As the Petitioner has documented both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor, we conclude that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“The Petitioner's experience and expertise in his field, presented work, level of research funding, record of success in product development, innovations utilized in the oil and gas industry, and progress in advancing geosteering research position him well to advance his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“Based on the Petitioner's track record of successful research and development work and the significance of that work to advance U.S. oil and gas industry interests, we find that he offers contributions of such value that, on balance, they would benefit the United States even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · credited
- patents · credited
- funding · credited
- resume experience · credited
- certification membership · credited
All 6 evidence items
- contract revenue · credited
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
Rare fully sustained NIW appeal in which the AAO found all three Dhanasar prongs satisfied, crediting extensive industry letters, patents, and substantial company funding ($20-50 million) for the petitioner's projects.
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.
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Concrete, corroborated evidence of the endeavor's real-world adoption (multiple companies, 1,500+ users, patents, $180M-funded R&D) established both national importance and being well positioned.
Pair endeavor description with quantifiable, third-party-corroborated adoption/impact metrics (users, companies, funding) to satisfy both merit and magnitude requirements.
specific
economic_growth_generic · field_advancement · us_competitiveness
mixed
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