The Petitioner, a finance executive in the oil and gas industry, proposed to continue advancing the U.S. oil and gas industry through her expertise in financial management, including structuring complex commercial transactions, potentially as a future CFO.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her continuing to serve as a finance manager for an employer in the oil and gas industry, rather than the national importance of the industry overall.”

“neither ... letter nor other evidence in the record demonstrates that through her work in contributing to complex commercial transactions for her employer, the Petitioner will create more jobs for the overall gas and oil industry”

“The conclusory statement in his letter is not supported by documentary evidence in the record”

“the record does not support the statement that her work as a financial manager has, or more importantly will prospectively, result in benefits to the environment on anything more than a remote level”

“it does not support a close link between the Petitioner's proposed work on complex commercial transactions for her current or future employer and these benefits”

“we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor would be of national importance, and she therefore does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar analysis”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionedestablished

“We agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner's education and experience in financial management, as well as her track record of success with her current employer, establish that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “The conclusory statement in his letter is not supported by documentary evidence in the record”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited
• resume experience · credited
• other · discounted

  “the assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO found that reference letters attesting to national economic, environmental, and national-security benefits of the shale oil/gas sector generally did not sufficiently tie those benefits to the Petitioner's specific individual endeavor; also noted a claimed letter of support from a professional association (AIPN) could not be located in the record and was mentioned only in counsel's briefs, not in the petitioner's own statement or resumes.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Section 291 of the Act

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