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 proposed to conduct research on U.S. energy policy reforms, including analysis and optimization of petroleum fiscal regimes, development of policy recommendations for energy security and economic prosperity, and dissemination of findings to government entities and think tanks. He aimed to attract foreign direct investment and expand domestic energy production across diverse sources.
Field: energy policy analysis / petroleum economics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS determined and AAO confirmed that the Petitioner qualifies as a professional holding an advanced degree (master's degree in petroleum, energy economics, and finance).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his research rises to the level of national importance.”
“he has not identified any specific methodologies that he would utilize to differentiate his research from research currently conducted by entities and experts in both public and private sectors”
“he has not addressed logistical considerations necessary for the impacts he has described, such as how he will fund his research or how he will influence the adoption of his recommendations”
“it is not the proverbial value of the field in which an individual intends to work, but the particular endeavor an individual intends to pursue that we consider”
“The Petitioner generally asserts that his research will potentially lead to billions of dollars in investment and the creation of thousands of jobs, but these assertions are not corroborated by evidence in the record.”
“These comparisons, however, rely on presumptive outcomes of policies not yet developed or tested.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“it does not provide clarity concerning the Petitioner's specific endeavor, which he has described as a wide-ranging research project covering topics and data routinely studied by both federal agencies and non-government organizations.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not discuss how his specific research intentions will have broader implications for U.S. energy policy.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the focus of these letters on the Petitioner's credentials and experience is information relating not to the national importance of an endeavor, as discussed in the first prong of Matter of Dhanasar, but to the second”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the record does not demonstrate, for example, that his work has been accepted for publication or chosen for inclusion at conferences”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
- Funding absent · p1 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
SCOPS had already found prong 1 merit (substantial merit) and prong 2 satisfied, but denied on national importance (part of prong 1) and prong 3. The AAO focused solely on the national importance sub-element of prong 1 as dispositive, declining to reach prong 2 and prong 3. The decision explicitly notes that some issues raised (funding, dissemination, logistical feasibility) technically straddle prong 2 but are treated as relevant to prong 1's national importance analysis, consistent with cross-prong coding. The Petitioner's comparative research on Ghana and Nigeria fiscal regimes was found insufficiently connected to proposed U.S. research.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show his specific research endeavor—as opposed to the energy field generally—had national-scale prospective impact; economic/job claims were unsupported by evidence.
Support projected economic/policy impact with concrete, corroborated evidence (funding, adoption commitments, publication acceptance) tied specifically to the endeavor, not generic field importance.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · us_competitiveness · field_advancement
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a senior principal biostatistician, proposes to develop innovative statistical and machine-learning meth
- The Petitioner proposed to use advanced deep learning and machine learning models to create efficient, safe, and well-pe
- The Petitioner proposes to advance machine learning methods for the design and optimization of advanced metamaterials an
- The Petitioner, a postdoctoral chemist, proposed to continue developing high-performance materials and novel synthetic m
- The Petitioner proposes to design novel sensor data processing methods and machine learning algorithms for smart wearabl