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 process engineer and project manager, proposed to continue his work in the construction and operation of processing facilities in energy-related industries, supporting the establishment of new facilities domestically and internationally.
Field: process engineering / project management (oil, gas, and energy-related industries) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer and its clientele to impact the process engineering field, his industry, or the environment more broadly”
“he has not demonstrated that the economic implications of these facilities would be attributable to the Petitioner's projects to an extent that his proposed work holds national importance”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer and its clientele”
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
- 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
Notable
The Petitioner submitted extensive industry-level articles about labor shortages, market trends, and geopolitical/economic conditions in various energy sectors, but the AAO distinguished industry importance from endeavor-specific national importance. The decision explicitly states each of the alternative grounds (though only prong 1 was actually analyzed) would independently support dismissal.
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.
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show his specific endeavor's impact extended beyond his employer/clients to the broader field, industry, or economy at a nationally significant scale.
Define a concrete endeavor and quantify its own attributable national-level impact—job creation, economic effects—rather than citing industry-wide statistics or employer scale.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · us_competitiveness · geographic_or_shortage_area
person_focused
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