From a cursory glance, it doesn't look terribly promising, but I haven't made a serious attempt to see what he's doing and how it might work. Examples of not-terribly-promising things:
1. He proves what he calls "Assertion 1", then says that it "suggests" some other propositions that he calls "Conclusion 1", "Conclusion 2", "Conclusion 3". He doesn't offer any proofs of these; they don't seem to be obvious consequences of Assertion 1; they don't even seem very likely to be true. In particular, Assertion 1 has the form "if graphs G and G' are isomorphic, then [linear algebra stuff]" and Conclusion 2 (which he uses later) has the form "if [linear algebra stuff] then graphs G and G' are isomorphic".
2. He then defines this thing he calls a W-matrix, which seems like it basically encodes for a given vertex of a given graph which other vertices are at any given distance from it. He then appears to claim -- I'm not quite sure, because his notation is eccentric and it's late at night -- that equality of W-matrices is basically the same thing as similarity of vertices (i.e., whether some graph automorphism carries one to the other), and that doesn't look right to me.
I repeat that I haven't looked at this carefully, and I'm not an expert in the field anyway. But it's not compelling enough to make me want to spend much more time on it; I expect that if it turns out to be valid someone smarter than me will check it over and let the world know :-).