dismissedJUL262024_03B52032024-07-26 · appeal · Nebraska 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 proposed to work as a project management lead for an oil and gas company in the United States, coordinating teams, overseeing maintenance and legal compliance, and transferring technical knowledge to peers and clients.
Field: project management in the oil and gas industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the benefits of his work as a project manager for a company in the United States would extend beyond the specific company for which he intends to work”
“our focus is on the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake rather than the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“he does not sufficiently address, and the evidence he submitted did not otherwise establish, how his role as a project manager for a specific company has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he does not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how the specific work he proposes to undertake offers original innovations to advance...the field”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“letters of recommendation that speak generally to the Petitioner's overall character and ability”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“articles describing the importance of oil and gas to the economy of the United States and the roles...of project managers in general”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the record reflects that the Petitioner has not worked since 2013, which calls into question the degree to which his experience remains relevant”
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
2,589coded 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 added a footnote observing the Petitioner had not worked since 2013, questioning the continued relevance of his experience to the proposed endeavor, though this was not formally adopted as a separate failure basis.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
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