dismissedMAY312022_02B52032022-05-31 · combined · 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 chemical engineer, proposed to continue working in chemical engineering in the oil and gas sector for his current employer.

Field: chemical engineering (oil & gas sector) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Foreign degree not shown equivalent to U.S. bachelor's due to lack of transcript and deficient evaluation; experience letters failed to establish progressive post-baccalaureate experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not directly state what his future work would involve, and that the record contained little direct evidence of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of continuing to serve in his role for an employer in the oil and gas industry, rather than the national importance of the industry overall”

“there was little indication that these documents were disseminated to anyone outside his employer or his employer's own projects”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“the diploma alone could not substantiate the duration or course content of his studies”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the letters did not establish how the Petitioner's work was progressive in nature”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“the evidence presented on motion does not establish that the Petitioner has resolved the evidentiary deficiencies previously noted”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“they are unrelated to the issue before us on motion and do not constitute new facts that overcome the ground underlying our previous decision”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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

1,581coded 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 faults petitioner for arguing he is legally entitled to a one-to-one comparison of his impact with Dr. Dhanasar's impact, and explains at length why precedent decisions do not require such comparisons. Petitioner conceded certain motion arguments were 'exactly the same arguments presented in the original Form I-290B,' which AAO used to find the motion to reconsider deficient under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3).

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. 103.5
8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer