dismissedSEP132023_09B52032023-09-13 · 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.
A drilling engineer and operations manager in the oil and gas industry proposed to continue working for his current employer and/or as an independent consultant on offshore and onshore drilling projects.
Field: oil and gas drilling engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he has not solidified how he will be employed as a drilling engineer and operations manager within the context of his proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner has not established how his specific proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“preventing a negative effect is not necessarily sufficient to establish an affirmative positive impact that rises to the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic activity his specific proposed endeavor generates would rise to the level of national importance”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value”
“The authors did not sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's performance or the results he achieved extended beyond his employer and the specific parties involved”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“did not sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's performance or the results he achieved extended beyond his employer”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“provides a general overview... offers little independent analysis of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“he has demonstrated the collective and general importance of drilling engineers”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
2,589coded 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
AAO found the petitioner failed to even establish a specific proposed endeavor (uncertain between employment vs. independent consulting), then proceeded to alternative analysis assuming continued employment; also distinguished a cited non-precedent decision (Matter of F-E-) the petitioner relied upon and addressed an APA-violation argument by the petitioner.
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