The Petitioner, an electrical engineer with expertise in the oil and gas industry, sought to continue his work through his own consultancy and maintenance company in the United States.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor will have broader implications in the field”

“The Petitioner's purported expertise as an engineer in the oil and gas industry alone is not sufficient to establish his eligibility”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“explains how the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established

“why USCIS could not conclude that the Petitioner is eligible for, and merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• citations publications · discounted
• other · ignored

  “this argument is not related to whether the Petitioner has established his eligibility for a national interest waiver”

  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
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
• Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground

Notable

Petitioner, appearing pro se, argued the Director applied an incorrect legal standard and submitted a ResearchGate.net percentile printout for the named petitioner in Matter of Dhanasar to argue comparable qualification, along with unrelated news articles about illegal immigration; the AAO found these arguments irrelevant and adopted and affirmed the Director's decision under Matter of Burbano.

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
• Chen v. INS
• Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
• The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
• The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers