dismissedJUL102024_08B52032024-07-10 · combined · 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 IT project manager in the oil and gas industry, proposed to implement disruptive technologies such as AI, data science, and machine learning to help reduce carbon emissions in that industry.

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

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not articulate or document what technologies or digitization methods he would implement to lead to carbon emissions reduction, what oil and gas companies or executives he would work with, or how his work would likely lead to a reduction in carbon emissions on a national level”

“the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his endeavor: (1) would broadly impact the oil and gas industry, (2) has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, (3) or that it otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation such as creating jobs in economically depressed areas”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

funding · discounted
“this evidence is not responsive to our prior decision and cannot be considered new evidence”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“this personal declaration relates to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than the national importance”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner does not adequately address these deficiencies and instead contests the correctness of our prior decision”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
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 AAO explicitly rejects the Petitioner's argument that it improperly resurrected the vacated NYSDOT 'national in scope' criterion, clarifying that Dhanasar's national-importance prong still considers geographic/economic breadth as one of several relevant characteristics without overemphasizing it.

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-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to identify concrete technologies, methods, or industry partners showing how his endeavor would broadly and measurably impact the U.S. oil and gas industry or economy.

Transferable lesson

On motion, submit new evidence squarely addressing the prong actually decided (national importance specifics), not prong-2/3 materials or generic industry-benefit assertions.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_growth_generic · field_advancement · critical_emerging_tech

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer