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 in the U.S. oil and gas industry to reduce environmental contamination from hydraulic fracturing, either by redesigning wastewater collection wells, working as a design specialist for companies, or starting his own company implementing novel drilling/waste-reduction techniques.
Field: petroleum/environmental engineering (hydraulic fracturing wastewater management) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Here, the nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is unclear.”
“The Petitioner does not explain in any detail his role in this very large project.”
“Further, some of the new information directly conflicted with the information submitted with the initial filing.”
“However, he provided no specific information or data relevant to economic effects potentially resulting from his proposed endeavor.”
“Since we are unable to specifically identify the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, we are likewise unable to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“the Petitioner does not clearly explain his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“do not analyze the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or offer evidence of its impact”
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
Notable
AAO emphasized inconsistencies between initial filing and RFE response regarding proposed work location (PA/VA/OH vs. Texas) and role (project participant vs. design specialist vs. company founder), treating this ambiguity as fatal to identifying a specific endeavor. AAO also rejected Petitioner's argument that Director abused discretion by not addressing every piece of evidence, citing multiple circuit court precedents on reasoned consideration standard.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Buletini v. INS
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- 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