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, sought to continue his career in the United States working in the oil and gas sector of the energy industry, including proposing improvements in oil well processes.
Field: petroleum engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not include sufficient documentation to establish what impact, if any, his proposed improvements have had on the field, whether they have been adopted by others”
“we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work, not the importance or economic benefits of his industry”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer(s) and their projects to impact the industry more broadly”
“Although the Petitioner claims one citation, the Petitioner did not provide a copy of the citing article and we were only able to obtain the abstract”
“The Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide valuable services and expertise for his employer”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“refers to a letter of recommendation praising the Petitioner's expertise and his prior research and presentations”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“we were only able to obtain the abstract at the provided Internet address...unable to determine the significance of the citation”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner again discusses his education and experience, including specific projects he has worked on and awards from his employer”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p1 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO expressly adopts and affirms the Director's decision under the Burbano/P. Singh standard, then adds its own comments; dismissal rests solely on prong 1 national importance, with prongs 2 and 3 expressly reserved as unnecessary.
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.
- Chen v. INS
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show his specific endeavor, distinct from the broader energy industry, had national-scale impact, innovation adoption, or economic effects beyond his employer's projects.
Define a concrete endeavor and provide evidence—citations, adoption by others, quantified economic/job impact—showing effects extend beyond the employer to the broader field or nation.
vague
economic_growth_generic · economic_job_creation · field_advancement
person_focused
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