dismissedJUL102018_01B52032018-07-10 · 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 petroleum engineer with a PhD, sought to continue work as an E&P data science professional/consultant in the oil and gas industry while also conducting independent research on carbon sequestration in deep saline aquifers to mitigate climate change.
Field: petroleum engineering / carbon sequestration research · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“The record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed petroleum engineering and consulting work has implications beyond any individual company and its business partners or clients”
“He has not demonstrated that the specific work he proposes to undertake for the aforementioned companies has broader implications in the field of petroleum engineering”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated a record of success or progress in his field, or a degree of interest in his work from relevant parties, rising to the level of rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed research”
“he has not addressed the Director's finding that he has not published much scholarly work in nearly five years”
“he has not presented evidence illustrating the significance of this number, or establishing that the research has been implemented, utilized, or applauded by those viewing it”
“these references do not adequately explain how his work has been influential among petroleum engineering researchers, has served as an impetus for progress or generated positive discourse in the field”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“does not show how this position renders him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not offer sufficient detail regarding his specific research accomplishments”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“not sufficient to demonstrate a record of success of, or interest in, his research”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · ignored
“the record does not indicate the Petitioner will conduct his proposed research as part of his employment”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
- Urgency not established · p3 — no reason shown why the benefit cannot wait for labour certification
- U.S. worker availability · p3 — the impracticality of a labour-market test was asserted, not established
746coded 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
AAO split the endeavor into two parts, finding the petroleum engineering/data science work fails national importance (too employer-specific) but the carbon sequestration research meets national importance; ultimately dismissed on prong 2 failure alone, treating prong 3 discussion as unnecessary. AAO also distinguished Petitioner's attempt to compare his citation record favorably to Dr. Dhanasar himself, rejecting the comparison.
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)(1)
- INA 203(b)(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