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 project manager with experience in oil refinery shutdown maintenance, proposed to continue working as a project manager and develop an innovative predictive maintenance plan combining Reliability-Centered Maintenance, Root Cause Analysis, and AI for critical refinery equipment.
Field: oil and gas project management / refinery maintenance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies as advanced degree professional based on bachelor's equivalent plus five years progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not established that his specific proposed endeavor has national importance”
“it is unclear how the prospective impact of the Petitioner's work, research or otherwise, would extend beyond the prospective employer and rise to a level that would be commensurate with having national importance”
“The plan does not specify what portion of the Petitioner's time would be devoted to research, nor does it offer a blueprint for disseminating any research findings throughout the oil and gas industry”
“the Petitioner has not established that the benefits of his plan would extend beyond his prospective employer, thus resulting in a "substantial positive economic effect" that would be commensurate with national importance”
“Petitioner does not explain how his plan would more broadly impact the oil refinery industry or the nation, as claimed”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The plan does not specify what portion of the Petitioner's time would be devoted to research, nor does it offer a blueprint for disseminating any research findings”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“none of the five articles mentioned the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- degree · credited
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO relied heavily on the Petitioner's own supporting articles and study, finding none of them specifically discussed his endeavor of combining RCM, RCA, and AI for refinery maintenance, despite his claims they supported national importance.
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 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