dismissedSEP122023_02B52032023-09-12 · combined · 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 mechanical engineer, proposed to work on infrastructure construction and repair projects within the oil and gas industry, in a project-management-related role.
Field: mechanical engineering / oil and gas infrastructure project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“this evidence does not establish that the impact of his work on those projects will extend beyond the benefits to his employer and its clients”
“the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed activities would affect the oil and gas industry more broadly”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“The letters do not discuss how his specific proposed endeavor is potentially of national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“Because these letters have been previously submitted, they are not "new facts," and they do not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The letters do not discuss how his specific proposed endeavor is potentially of national importance.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“this evidence does not establish that the impact of his work on those projects will extend beyond the benefits to his employer and its clients”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
746coded 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 AAO's prior decision disregarded 'obvious and intuitive prepositions and syllogism(s)' and failed to individually consider each document; the AAO rejected this as unsupported by citation to precedent, statute, regulation, or policy.
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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
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