dismissedJAN222024_02B52032024-01-22 · 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 project manager in the offshore oil and gas industry, proposed to continue working in the field as an employee or consultant, with statements variously describing plans to provide consulting services, maintain high-profile employment, or transition to an executive role in a renewable energy company.

Field: oil and gas project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO found Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 as an advanced degree professional via a foreign equivalent bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“With his proposed endeavor lacking specificity and being unclear, it is difficult to determine that his endeavor has national importance”

“the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry in establishing the national importance of his proposed endeavor”

“this again goes to the industry as a whole rather than the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

“The record does not elaborate on how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor will cause such effects, beyond operating within the field as a whole”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence based on these recommendation letters to demonstrate the prospective impact of his future proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“these documents relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, where we shift the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“this again goes to the industry as a whole rather than the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
degree · credited

Where this case turned

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

1,581coded 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

The Petitioner raised an Administrative Procedure Act challenge, alleging the Director used vague, boilerplate language without genuine analysis; the AAO rejected this, finding the Director's RFE and decision reflected a substantive, individualized review of the evidence consistent with 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(8) and 103.3(a)(1)(i).

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. 103.2(b)(8)
8 C.F.R. 103.3
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Matter of E-M-
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer