The Petitioner, a drilling engineer, sought to continue his career in drilling and wells engineering in the U.S. oil and gas industry, focusing on data acquisition, optimization, and improving performance of mature reservoirs.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”

“the record lacks sufficient evidence to establish a strong connection between the proposed endeavor activities and job creation or tax revenues on a level commensurate with national importance”

“does not explain the basis for this conclusion or identify the positive economic impacts of which he opines”

“neither[ ] nor the Petitioner sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work as a drilling and wells engineer would resolve the shortage or produce an impact rising to the level of national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “does not explain how the Petitioner's specific endeavor will impact or benefit the industry”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

Petitioner argued AAO was legally required to conduct a one-to-one comparison of his impact to that of Dr. Dhanasar himself, citing the concept of precedent decisions; AAO rejected this as a misunderstanding of how precedent decisions function. Petitioner also invoked STEM field status and occupational shortage arguments, both rejected as insufficient without endeavor-specific evidence.

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
• Matter of L-A-C-
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

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