dismissedJUL172023_05B52032023-07-17 · 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 over 10 years of experience in directional drilling and reservoir/well engineering, proposed to continue working as a petroleum engineer in the U.S., initially with American companies and later (per RFE response) by opening his own engineering services firm.
Field: petroleum engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of providing his particular petroleum engineering services to companies rather than the importance of the occupation or the industry or field.”
“the alleged shortage of an occupation does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”
“the record does not show through supporting documentation how his specific employment services stand to sufficiently extend beyond his prospective employers, to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“the Petitioner did not show his initial proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of opening and operating his own business.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor... rather than the importance of the occupation or the industry or field.”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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
AAO rejected consideration of the Petitioner's changed proposed endeavor (opening his own business) because it arose after filing, citing Matter of Izummi and Matter of Bardouille regarding after-acquired facts; the decision also explicitly frames its prong 1 analysis as an independent and alternate basis for dismissal.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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