The Petitioner, a petroleum/reservoir engineer, proposed to co-found an oil and gas industry strategic consulting company in Texas serving production companies, banks, and private investors.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his customers to impact his field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”

“the business plan primarily consists of information unrelated to a plan for operating a business, such as the Petitioner's prior work experience and generalized information regarding the oil and gas industry”

“the record does not establish how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may benefit "oil and gas production companies, banks, and private investors" that are not clients”

“the business plan does not establish which particular area within the I I Texas, metropolitan area the company will be located”

“the record does not establish how one additional oil and gas industry consulting company in the I I Texas, metropolitan area, employing eight total workers, demonstrates a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the business plan primarily consists of information unrelated to a plan for operating a business”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “it does not provide probative information about how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have the type of national or even global implications”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the generalized information in the record regarding the oil and gas industry ... is immaterial to determining whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• 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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO noted the Director's RFE had told Petitioner he did not qualify as an advanced degree professional, yet the Director still proceeded to the NIW analysis; AAO expressly declined to resolve this inconsistency, reserving the threshold EB-2 question as unnecessary given the dispositive prong 1 failure. AAO also took 'administrative notice' that only certain areas of the metro area are economically distressed.

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
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-

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