NIW Bearings
dismissedMAR302026_02B52032026-03-30 · appeal

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 as president and senior project manager of his engineering, procurement, and construction management firm, developing and deploying modular, plug-and-play oil and gas facility systems intended to reduce capital waste and methane emissions.

Field: oil and gas facility / industrial engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO found Petitioner not eligible as advanced degree professional (diploma equated to bachelor's only when combined with experience, and Petitioner did not contest this on appeal, deeming it waived). AAO agreed with SCOPS that Petitioner met 3 of 6 exceptional ability criteria but reserved the final merits determination on exceptional ability because the NIW prong 1 failure was dispositive.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the articles and industry reports do not mention the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or its potential impact on the field or on national initiatives”
“working in the gas and oil field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“these impact summaries do not identify the source or author, or the methodologies used”
“the Petitioner has not adequately explained or demonstrated how his expertise differs from or improves upon those models readily available and already in use in the United States”
“Without sufficient documentary evidence that his proposed work as an oil and gas facility engineer expert extends beyond his prospective clients to impact the field or the U.S. economy, society, or the environment more broadly”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • degree · discounted
    “the Petitioner's diploma from represents three years of undergraduate study, and only equates to a U.S. bachelor's degree when combined with his employment experience”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the content of these letters relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, instead of speaking to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “these impact summaries do not identify the source or author, or the methodologies used”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the letter does not provide detail about the Petitioner's own specific role in the project”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “he does not provide his credentials or explain how he derived this estimation”
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • resume experience · credited

Where this case turned

  • Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • 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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,312coded 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 reserved both the exceptional-ability final merits determination and the third Dhanasar prong because the first-prong national importance failure was dispositive; also declined to address advanced degree professional eligibility further after finding it waived on appeal. AAO explicitly noted the Petitioner's trademark of a brand name was not evidence of technical novelty, distinguishing trademark from patent protection in a footnote.

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)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
  • Flores v. Garland
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of E-M-
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Matter of O-R-E-
  • Matter of R-A-M-
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer