dismissedSEP052023_02B52032023-09-05 · 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, proposed to continue working in the U.S. oil and gas industry either for his current employer, another U.S.-based employer, or as an independent consultant delivering drilling and well-completion/packer products and services.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The record established the Petitioner holds a foreign equivalent bachelor's degree plus at least five years of post-baccalaureate experience, qualifying as an advanced degree professional.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The record does not reflect whether the proposed endeavor involves pursuing one or each one of these employment avenues, some combination of them, or whether he will hold these positions simultaneously or concurrently.”

“the business activity these packers generate appears to primarily benefit land its direct partners and clients.”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic activity his specific proposed endeavor generates would rise to the level of national importance.”

“It is insufficient to demonstrate that an occupational category is of national importance.”

“generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
AAO decision text
patents · discounted
“the evidence does not clarify how the Petitioner's design extended beyond his employer to affect the field as a whole.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established how his specific proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the articles and reports largely address the industry or occupation as a whole, rather than the specific proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner primarily relies upon the evidence and assertions he previously provided, which we addressed above.”
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
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact

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

The Petitioner argued the Director's decision violated the Administrative Procedures Act by containing boilerplate/contradictory statements; the AAO rejected this via citation to Guaman-Loja v. Holder. The Petitioner also cited a non-precedent decision, Matter of F-E-, which the AAO distinguished as non-binding and factually dissimilar.

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(c)
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer