dismissedMAY202024_03B52032024-05-20 · appeal · 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, a petroleum engineer, proposed to continue working with oil and gas operators applying digital technologies to improve recovery efficiency, reduce emissions and costs, while also mentoring students and industry professionals through the Society of Petroleum Engineers and his charitable foundation.

Field: petroleum engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner established eligibility as an advanced degree professional based on a foreign equivalent bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he does not sufficiently detail such digital technology solutions or how his endeavor would be different from work typically performed by petroleum engineers”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated his work as a petroleum engineer expert for oil and gas operators has the potential to impact his field more broadly rising to the level of national importance”

“Instead of focusing on the importance of an industry or the need for workers in a specific industry, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“the Petitioner's claims that his work with gas and oil operators will benefit the United States with a reduced carbon footprint and cleaner energy security have not been established through independent and objective evidence”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the content of these letters also 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
resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's reliance on his professional knowledge and experience to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor is misplaced.”
AAO decision text
degree · credited
other · discounted
“working in the gas and oil field as a petroleum engineer expert is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
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
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

2,501coded 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

The Petitioner argued his endeavor 'well matches' that of the beneficiary in Matter of Dhanasar (air and space propulsion research tied to national security), but the AAO rejected the analogy for lacking a sufficiently detailed explanation of similarity beyond both relating to important government issues.

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
Flores v. Garland
Matter of E-M-
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer