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 clean petroleum products trader with experience in gasoline blending and business development, proposed to continue working in this capacity in the U.S. oil and gas industry, either with his current employer or another company.
Field: oil and gas / clean petroleum products trading · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO agreed, that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on his baccalaureate degree and over five years of progressive post-baccalaureate work experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Director determined that the potential benefits of the proposed endeavor had not been shown to reach beyond the Petitioner's employer and its clients”
“a petitioner cannot rely solely upon the national importance of the particular field or industry in which they work to demonstrate that their proposed endeavor meets the requirements of this prong”
“he also cannot rely on the cumulative effect of all workers in the same profession”
“these assertions regarding his direct impact on job creation are not supported by the evidence”
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor is of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not suggest that his specific proposed endeavor will directly or substantially impact the hiring or retention of workers”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“these statements relate to his skills and record of success in similar efforts, factors which are considered when evaluating a petitioner's positioning to advance their proposed endeavor under the second prong”
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
- 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 emphasizes that Petitioner cannot rely on cumulative industry-wide importance ('as a group, clean products traders are critical to the industry') to establish national importance of his specific endeavor, reinforcing the Dhanasar STEM-teacher analogy.
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
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show his specific trading role had impact beyond his employer and its clients; reliance on industry-wide or cumulative-profession importance was rejected under Dhanasar prong one.
Distinguish the specific proposed endeavor from the general industry; provide concrete, endeavor-specific evidence of broader impact, not just personal expertise or field-wide significance.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement
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