dismissedJAN262022_01B52032022-01-26 · 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, an exploration geoscientist, proposed to continue working for his employer in the oil and gas sector, providing technical and operational guidance on seismic interpretations and structural modeling for large-scale oil and gas projects.

Field: exploration geology / oil and gas · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish how the endeavor would have broader implications in terms of significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have substantial positive economic effects, beyond the Petitioner's employer and its clients”

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

“do not address how the actual endeavor the Petitioner would pursue...would have substantial positive economic effects broader than benefitting the Petitioner's employer and its clients”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

resume experience · discounted
“he did not initially elaborate further on what the proposed endeavor would entail”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · ignored
citations publications · discounted
“it does not address whether the endeavor would have broader, substantial positive economic effects, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong”
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

The Petitioner's brief on appeal accused the Director of espousing 'Leftist Economic Dogma' and reused verbatim language from the RFE response; the AAO explicitly rejected these characterizations as unsupported by the record and noted the repetitive/boilerplate nature of much of the appeal brief.

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
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer