dismissedNOV152023_05B52032023-11-15 · 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, an IT/project manager with experience in the oil and gas sector, proposed to provide digitization and cloud/data-management consulting services in the U.S. to help oil and gas companies improve efficiency and reduce carbon emissions.
Field: information technology / oil and gas · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“it is not clear how this general overview of digitization in the oil and gas industry relates directly to the Petitioner's endeavor and its potential prospective impact”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clientele”
“the Petitioner provides little detail on the potential economic impacts of his proposed U.S. business”
“the Petitioner here only vaguely asserts that the proposed endeavor would have an impact on data management and cloud computing”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- media · discounted
“it is not clear how this article relates directly to demonstrating that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would likely have a potential prospective impact at the national level”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“there is little indication or evidentiary support as to how the Petitioner's specific endeavor would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's experience and knowledge in and of itself is not relevant to demonstrating its national importance, but whether he is well positioned to advance the endeavor”
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
- 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
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
AAO explicitly reserved prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary once prong 1 was found dispositive, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach alternative 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.
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod