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 oil drilling engineer, sought to continue working for his current employer specializing in casing and cementing operations on offshore oil rigs, work he characterized as vital to national energy security and safety.
Field: petroleum/drilling engineering (oil and gas, casing and cementing) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“it did not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to continue working for his current employer as a drilling engineer specializing in casing and cementing would have those same implications.”
“Dhanasar states that it is the specific endeavor that is the focus of the first prong, not the individual's field or occupation.”
“that expertise itself is not a factor in the national importance of the endeavor.”
“he has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor, he does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“considerations of the Petitioner's education, experience and record of success are specifically reserved for the second prong of the Dhanasar analysis”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“this evidence does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, which entails work as a drilling engineer specializing in casing and cementing, would have those same implications”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“does not constitute new evidence supporting new facts that are material to the issues raised on motion which have not been previously submitted in the proceeding”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
Notable
This is a combined motion to reconsider and motion to reopen a prior AAO appellate dismissal. The AAO had previously found the Petitioner met Dhanasar prong 2 but failed prong 1, and continued to reserve prong 3 on both the appeal and this motion, citing Bagamasbad twice. The AAO characterized the motion to reconsider as substantially reiterating the prior appellate brief, invoking Matter of O-S-G- for that proposition, and found the motion to reopen's new evidence cumulative and non-material under Matter of Coelho.
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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-S-G-
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