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 work in the construction and operation of processing facilities in the oil and gas industry, supporting the establishment of new facilities.
Field: process engineering / project management (oil and gas industry) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“We determined that the evidence was insufficient to show that his work would impact the process engineering field, his industry, or the environment more broadly, as opposed to being limited to his employer and its clientele.”
“This document does not support the Petitioner's assertion that he has recommended new technologies licensed by US based companies or that these technologies will be licensed to such an extent that it would impact the process engineering field, his industry, or the environment more broadly, or that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”
“The article does not mention any projects being worked on or influenced by the Petitioner and does not otherwise indicate the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- contract revenue · discounted
“does not indicate the Petitioner would have decision-making authority over the selection of technologies”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“does not support the Petitioner's assertion that his work would impact the process engineering field, his industry, or the environment more broadly”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“does not indicate the project would have the potential to hire U.S. workers to such an extent as to be of national importance”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“The article does not mention any projects being worked on or influenced by the Petitioner”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“he does not specifically indicate how our decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
This is a combined motion to reconsider and reopen following a prior AAO appeal dismissal; the AAO applied de novo review and found the motion to reconsider failed because Petitioner merely reiterated prior arguments without identifying legal/factual error, and the motion to reopen failed because new evidence (scope of work document, project proposals, industry article) still did not establish national importance beyond employer-specific benefit.
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)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
New evidence (project scopes, proposals, licensing claims, industry article) failed to show impact beyond employer/its clientele, so national importance under Dhanasar prong 1 remained unmet.
Tie specific, quantifiable, attributable impacts (jobs created, technology adoption scale, industry-wide effect) directly to the petitioner's own work, not just employer projects or general industry trends.
vague
economic_job_creation · field_advancement · economic_growth_generic
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