dismissedMAR172022_01B52032022-03-17 · motion_reopen · 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 sought to continue advanced engineering and management work for his employer in the oil and gas industry, having been promoted to upstream portfolio global implementation lead.
Field: oil and gas / petroleum engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would primarily impact his employer, rather than the field or industry more broadly.”
“the record does not establish that these two documents, or any of the similar reports the Petitioner submitted on motion, sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
“fails to sufficiently establish, for example, that any specific original innovations he has been responsible for have impacted his field”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual case, and may be distinguishable”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“that is not the issue in this matter”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“these are considerations under the second prong, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“has not established new facts relevant to our previous decision that would warrant reopening”
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 addressed the Petitioner's reliance on two prior non-precedent AAO decisions involving similar industry evidence (a White House Fact Sheet and DOE report), distinguishing them and clarifying that such general industry-importance evidence does not establish national importance of a specific endeavor.
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(c)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5
- INA 203(b)(2)
- 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