dismissedSEP292022_02B52032022-09-29 · 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 training manager for an oil and gas services company, proposed to continue working in advanced electrical and electronics engineering by training his employer's engineers and instructors on tools maintenance and technical guides.

Field: advanced electrical/electronics engineering, oil and gas sector · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record indicates that the Petitioner's endeavor of training his employer's employees will benefit his employer and, by extension, his employer's clients.”

“The record does not establish how his training sessions may have "national or even global implications within a particular field,"”

“The record does not support the Petitioner's assertion that his endeavor-training his employer's employees-creates jobs.”

“the record does not establish that they hold "senior positions throughout his industry."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the record does not establish that they hold "senior positions throughout his industry."”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“It is to be used only for the benefit of [employer] and may not be distributed, transmitted, reproduced, altered, or used for any purpose without express written consent”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“both emails specifically indicate "Date: * No Date*."”
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
Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

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

The Petitioner's appellate brief and statement repeatedly and erroneously reference the endeavor and case of a different individual identified only as 'I-O-', whose name is entirely dissimilar to the Petitioner's, in at least 20 paragraphs; the AAO found no record establishing that this person was an alias of the Petitioner and treated those arguments as inapposite. The Petitioner also incorrectly claimed the AAO itself had previously issued a decision in the matter, when the appeal was in fact from the Director's initial denial.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer