dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Chemical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF U-A-K-U-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE5,2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a chemical process engineer, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest waiver of the 
job otTer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). After a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 
classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 
grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (l) that the foreign national's proposed 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign national is well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. Maller of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, finding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree, but that she had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, 
and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that she is eligible for a national interest waiver 
under the Dhanasar framework. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an 
individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this classification 
requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required 
to establish that a waiver of the job otTer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
Mauer of U-A-K-U-
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability.-
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent 
or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, 
will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in 
the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the 
United States. 
(B) Waiver of job otTer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attomey General may, when the 
Attorney General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the 
requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, 
professions, or business be sought. by an employer in the United Suites. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Maller of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884. 1 Dhanasar states that after EB-2 eligibility has been established, 
USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver when the below prongs are 
met. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to 'undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of 
areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors 
including, but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in 
related or similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the 
proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities 
or individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job. offer and thus of a labor certification. In 
performing this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the 
1 In announcing this framework, we vacated our prior Precedent decision, Matter of N~v York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD07). 
.
Maller of U-A-K-U-
foreign national 's qualifications or the proposed endeavor , it would be impractical either for the 
foreign national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, 
even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit 
from the foreign national 's contributions; and whether the nat ional interest in the foreign nationa l's 
contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, 
the factor(s) considered must, taken together, indicate that on balance, it would be beneticia l to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job otTer and thus of a labor certification. 2 
ll. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitoner qualifies as a member of the profe ssions holding an advanced 
degrec. 3 The sole issue to be detem1ined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance ofthe Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner states that she plans to pursue research and development work in the sha le gas 
industry relating to "the use of mineral oil for fracturing formations." She contends that she will 
"fully explore the use of mineral oil as base fluid for preparing fracturing fluid s after BTEX 4 content 
has been reduced to acceptable amounts in spent mineral oil and propose this innovative method to 
the United State s shale oil and shale gas industry." The record includes a lette r of support from 
. professor and chair of the Department of Chemical and Natural Gas Engin eering at 
stating: "With the anticipated success of replacing water with mineral oil in !racking 
operations as a result of this research subject, the U.S. shale indu stry would be set to harne ss the 
abundant resources of shale oil and gas , especially in formations containing large amount s of clay 
which could otherwise collapse if water is used as a base t1uid for fracturing. " To the extent that the 
Petitioner proposes to perform research regarding improved techniques and processes in this 
indu stry, we find that the record supports the Director 's determination that she meets the first prong 
of the Dhanasar framework. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeav or 
The second prong shifts the tocus from the proposed endeavor to the Peti tio ner's qualifications. 
Prior to her graduate studies at (June 2014 - May 20 16), the Petitioner indicates she was 
employed as a process engineer in Nigeria at the 
project (October 2013- May 2014) , (July 2012 -
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 The Petitioner received a master of science degree in natural gas engineering from 
in May 20 16. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that she also meets the regulatory criteria for individuals of 
exceptional ability set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3Xii). However, as the Petitioner already qualifies for the underlying 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. we need not consider her eligibility as an 
individual of exceptional ability. 
4 
This acronym refers to the chemical compounds Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene. 
3 
.
Mauer cif U-A-K-U-
September 2013), and (July 2007- Augu st 2012). At the time of filing, the 
Petitioner was working as a Technology, Innovation, and _Manufacturing (TIM) Engineer for 
ice cream , a wholly owned subsidiary of 
The Petitioner submitted documentation of her conference presen tations, graduate research project , 
training certifications, academic record s, employment verifications , job opportunity emai ls from 
prospective employers, and associate membership in the She also offered 
reference letters discussing her work experience and research projects. 6 The Petjtioner maintains 
that her qualifications, past achievements, commitment to her work, and professional and academic 
abilities render her well positioned to advance her endeavor. 
With respect to her past fracturing operations research in the shale indust ry, the Petitioner asserts 
that while she has not had sufficient time to publi sh her result s, she has presen ted her work at 
international conferences. In letters supporting the petition , seve ral professors men tioned the 
Petitioner's rese.arch aimed at removing BTEX from spent mineral oil and impr oving practice s in the 
oil and gas industry. For example, explained that the Petitioner investigated various 
processes capable of reducing BTEX compounds to non-detect able limits as speci fied by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) .7 He asserted that the Petitioner found that the ext ractive 
distillation process was "the most suitable and cost-effective" method. Similarly, the Petitioner's 
former professors at the in Nigeria, and 
both noted that she investigated the use of mineral oil as a substitute for water in fracturing 
operations and proposed recycl ing ofthe spe nt mineral oil once the BTEX leve l was reduced to meet 
EPA standards. 
In addition, discussed the Petitioner's undergraduat e research in which she investigated 
the effectiveness of liquefied petroleum gas and compressed natur al gas as alternatives to petroleum 
with respect to Nigeria 's energy supply. He also mentioned technical papers the Petitioner· wrote 
concerning the effects of natural gas on the environment. While indicated that the 
Petitioner propo sed ways to help mitigate gas flaring in the African continent, he did not offer 
specific exampl es of how her findings have generated positive interest among relevant partie s, have 
affec ted practic es in the indu stry, or otherwise reflect a record of success in her area of research. 
5 The Petitioner's initial submission included an August 2016 letter confirming her acceptance of job ollcr for 
the role of TIM Engineer. In response to the Director's first request for evidence. she provided her TIM 
Engineer job description which states: "This TIM Engineering role is essentially responsible for being the subject matter 
expert on all equipment processes and specifically owns equipment set-up and process capability for new 
product launches. Additionally, this Engineer will act as technical coach and resource for the site operations teams ... :· We 
note that this recent acceptance of employment with ice cream is not consistent with the Petitioner's proposal 
to conduct fracturing operations research in the U.S. shale industry. Regardless, for the reasons discussed in this decision, we 
do not find her well positioned to advance her research endeavor. 
6 We discuss only a sampling of these letters, but have reviewed and considered each one. 
7 
The record includes a June 2015 research project proposal by entitled 
but the Petitioner is not identified in the proposal and there is no documentary 
evidence indicating that she collaborated with on this project. 
4 
.
Matter of U-A-K-U-
. senior vice president for student affairs at stated that the Petitioner presen ted 
a poster entitled A new era of oil sp ill cleanup " at the univ ers ity's 6th 
asserted that the Petitioner's "methodology was so und and her 
inferences were incisive" and that she "has a profound underst andin g of the oil and gas industry as a 
whole. " 
The record demo nstrates that the Petitioner has conducted and presented research as part of her 
graduate and undergraduate studies. While we recognize that research must add information to the 
pool of knowle dge in some way in order to be accep ted for publication, presentation, funding, or 
academic cred it, not every individual who has performe d original research wi ll be found to be wel l 
positioned to adva nce his or her propo sed research. Rather , we exa mine the factors set forth in 
Dhanasar to detem1ine whether, for instance, the individual's progress towards achieving the goals 
of the proposed research, record of success in similar e fforts, or generation of interest among 
relev ant partie s s upport s such a findin g. !d. at 890. The Petitioner has not shown that her resea rch 
has been frequently cited by others or otherwise served · as an imp etus for progre ss in the field, that it 
has affected the oil and gas industry, or that it has generated substantial positive dis course in the 
broader academic community. Nor does th~ evidence otherwise de monstrate tha t her work 
otherwise constitutes a reco rd of success or progress in her area of research . 
In sum, the Petitioner has not demonstr ated a record of success or progress in her tield , or a degree of 
interest in her work from relevant parties, that rises to the level of rendering her well positioned to 
advance her proposed endeav or of performing fracturing operation s research aimed at improving 
pract ices in the oil and gas industry. As the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is 
well positioned to advance her propo sed endeavor, she ha s not estab lished that she sat isfies the 
secon d prong of the Dhana sar framew ork. Accordingly, we affirm the Direct or's determin atio n on 
this issue. 
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver' s Benefit to the United States 
As explained above, the third prong requires the petiti oner to demonstrate that, on balance , it would 
be beneficial to the Unit ed States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. The Direct or found that the Petition er did not mee t this prong, and her appellate 
submission does not includ e argument s or eviden ce addre ssing or challenging this finding. 
Regard less, as the Petitioner has not estab lished that she is well positioned to advance her proposed 
endeavor as required by the second prong of the Dhanasar framewo rk, she is not eligib le for a 
national intere st waiver and further discuss ion of the balar:tcing factors under the third prong woul d 
serve no meaningful purpo se. 
111. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framewo rk, 
we find that she has not established that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a nation al interest 
waiver as a matter of discr etio n. 
5 
Matter of U-A-K-U-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o{U-A-K-U-, lD# 1263736 (AAO June 5, 2018) 
6