dismissedNOV042024_10B52032024-11-04 · 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 employed as a senior functional engineer, proposed to continue researching and developing oil-well stimulation products (including carbon nanotube-based materials) to increase oil recovery and reduce wastewater and pollution, publish his findings, and eventually start his own company selling green stimulant products.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director found, and AAO agreed, that Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“it appears that any impact that will flow from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will only extend to employers or entities availing themselves of the Petitioner's services.”

“the record does not demonstrate the national or global impact or broader implications of these products.”

“the letters do not provide sufficient details to understand how the Petitioner's endeavor to research and develop products (such as his organic gel), exert national, or even global impact, or broader implications”

“the Petitioner has not persuasively established by a preponderance of the evidence how his proposed endeavor, as described below, would affect a STEM field or industry in a manner consistent with national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not provide sufficient details to understand how the Petitioner's endeavor... exert national, or even global impact, or broader implications”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“these documents do not specifically discuss or address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · ignored
“this information is considered as part of our analysis of Dhanasar's second prong, where... we examine whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor.”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“the record does not demonstrate the national or global impact or broader implications of these products.”
AAO decision text
citations publications · ignored
“this information is considered as part of our analysis of Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
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
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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 rejected Petitioner's argument that his STEM degree/field should be weighed as national-interest priority, clarifying that field-level importance is distinct from the specific endeavor's national importance; letters credited for well-positioned prong were deemed irrelevant to prong one and expressly deferred to a prong two analysis that was never reached.

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
Matter of Caron Int'l
Matter of D-R-
Matter of L-A-C-
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer