dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Drilling Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 23114323 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC . 22, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a drilling engineer , seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of 
the profession s holding an advanced degree , as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement attached to this EB-2 classification . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record established 
that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree but that the Petitioner had not established that a waiver of the required job offer , and thus of 
the labor certification , would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 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 offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203 (b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Alien s 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 ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... the Attorney 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 States. 
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 Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that, after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as a 
matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the 
noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the 
noncitizen 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. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. Although the Director found substantial merit in the proposed endeavor, the Director 
concluded that the record did not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor has national importance. The 
Director also concluded the record did not satisfy the second and third Dhanasar prongs. For the 
reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of a job 
offer is warranted. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the 
specific endeavor that the noncitizen 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. 
Initially, the Petitioner described his experience and background in the fields of mechanical 
engineering and drilling and wells engineering, and indicated that he was seeking employment in these 
fields. A supporting letter described the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as follows: 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Dep 't of Transp., 
22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 
[The Petitioner] will be able to significantly contribute to the U.S. economy because 
the United States economy runs on oil and gas. The Petitioner's drilling engineering 
experience will enable the oil and gas industry to expand and grow as he develops and 
exploits these resources. The U.S., and especially the state of Texas is developing 
energy from shale in an advanced process that uses the latest drilling technologies and 
equipment. Playing a big role in this is hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling 
which is safely unlocking vast U.S. reserves of oil and natural gas found in shale and 
other tight-rock formations, and drilling engineering is a specific and highly necessary 
skill which is essential for the continued exploration and exploitation of these 
resources. [The Petitioner] will be able to continue to use his talents to find and develop 
oil and gas (and other) natural resources which can be exploited. The necessity of 
finding and developing these resources is critical to keeping the U.S. economy running. 
The Petitioner claimed that his work has both substantial merit and national importance because the 
fields of mechanical engineering and drilling and wells engineering have substantial intrinsic merit 
based on their "role in generating advances with direct applications throughout our country's 
economy." The Petitioner also claimed that the continued dissemination of his published works in the 
field will "impact all parts of the nation." 
The Director issued a request for evidence, noting that continuing employment in one's position, field, 
or industry is not an endeavor sufficient to evaluate under the Dhanasar analytical framework. The 
Director asked the Petitioner to specify the exact nature of the proposed endeavor, and requested 
evidence to demonstrate the endeavor's substantial merit and national importance. 
In response, the Petitioner indicated in a statement of intent that his proposed endeavor is "to continue 
[his] career working in the field of Drilling and Wells Engineering, which has direct applications 
throughout our country's oil and gas industry." He further stated: 
As I noted in my NIW case, my goal is to continue generating technological advances 
in and especially 
concerning data acquisition and optimization. I also intend to work on improving the 
performance of mature reservoirs by optimizing! I and I I 
I I My main focus is I 11 I 
I I as well asl aall of which are of increasing importance to 
the U.S. energy sector. 
I intend to continue serving the United States and its energy sector as a Drilling & Wells 
Engineer for the remainder of my professional career. 
The Petitioner also submitted letters of recommendation in support of his petition, and asserted that 
these and other opinion letters previously submitted demonstrated the substantial merit and national 
importance of his proposed endeavor and his overall qualifications for a national interest waiver. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the although the proposed endeavor had 
substantial merit, the record did not establish the endeavor's national importance, as the evidence did 
not demonstrate the endeavor's potential prospective impact or show the wider economic effects of 
3 
the endeavor. The Director noted that the overall importance of the Petitioner's occupation does not 
establish the national importance of the Petitioner's particular proposed endeavor, and further noted 
that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to show the potential economic impact of the 
endeavor on the U.S. economy or establish that the proposed endeavor had significant potential to 
create jobs or generate technological advancements. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the decision 
to deny the petition was in error and that he is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
Upon review, we concur with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the 
national importance of his endeavor. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. The Petitioner 
claimed that he will to continue his career working in the field of drilling and wells engineering. 
Although the Petitioner highlighted that his endeavor would positively impact the economy, he has 
not offered sufficient evidence to corroborate these claims. We acknowledge that by continuing to 
work as a drilling and wells engineer, the companies that hire him for his services can be more 
productive in providing services to others and that the benefits of a productive, well-functioning 
business extend beyond the individual organization. We further acknowledge the Petitioner's 
assertion that his work in this field will ultimately assist the U.S. oil and gas industry in achieving 
energy independence. However, the record lacks sufficient evidence to establish a strong connection 
between the proposed endeavor activities and job creation or tax revenues on a level commensurate 
with national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not 
rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec at 893. Similarly, the proposed endeavor may very well positively impact the 
individuals and businesses that engage the Petitioner for his services, but the evidence does not suggest 
that the Petitioner's services will be available on a level that creates national or global implications in 
the field of drilling and wells engineering or the oil and gas sector. Without sufficient information or 
evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, 
the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the 
Petitioner's services would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that we did not properly analyze his case in comparison to the standard 
set by Dhanasar. The Petitioner asserts that we are legally required to compare the impact of his work 
with that of Dr. Dhanasar and cites to the concept of precedent decisions in support of this assertion. 
While we agree that Dhanasar is a precedent decision and further acknowledge the concept of 
precedent decisions and their controlling nature, we reiterate our previous observation that the 
Petitioner cited no legal authority for a one-to-one comparison of two petitioners operating in different 
fields with different proposed endeavors. Dhanasar establishes an analytical framework to examine 
national interest waiver cases, but it does not mandate, or even suggest, that a side-by-side comparison 
of individual petitioners and endeavors is required. Here, the Petitioner misunderstands the nature of 
precedent decisions when he asserts that approvals are required for any petitioner with more impact 
than Dr. Dhanasar. 
The Petitioner also states on appeal that his field of endeavor falls within the STEM fields of science, 
technology, engineering, or mathematics. Citing to the USCIS Policy Manual, the Petitioner argues 
4 
that his endeavor in the field of engineering is important as it relates to research and 
development-intensive industries. With regard to national importance, however, the relevant question 
is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus 
on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake ." See id. at 889. As 
noted by the Director, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his continued career 
as a drilling and wells engineer in the oil and gas industry, rather than the national importance of the 
industry overall. 
Moreover, the fact that his endeavor falls within a STEM field does not automatically show eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. Specifically, the STEM endeavor must have both substantial merit and 
national importance in respect to the first prong of Dhanasar. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov /policymanual. Many proposed endeavors that aim to advance 
STEM technologies and research, whether in academic or industry settings, not only have substantial 
merit in relation to U.S . science and technology interests, but also have sufficiently broad potential 
implications to demonstrate national importance. Id. On the other hand, while proposed classroom 
teaching activities in STEM, for example, may have substantial merit in relation to U.S. educational 
interests, such activities, by themselves, generally are not indicative of an impact in the field of STEM 
education more broadly, and therefore generally would not establish their national importance. Id. 
We also acknowledge the Petitioner's letters of recommendation, which evaluate the Petitioner's 
achievement in the industry and comment on his proposed endeavor. 3 I I a senior 
petroleum engineer for I states that the Petitioner's endeavor "will enhance and sustain the 
societal platforms we have come to enjoy," noting that "until solar, wind, and biofuels can substantially 
supply the United States' energy demand ... oil is king, and it drives the US economy to the tune of 
a reported 10+ million jobs ." While we note that the United States is reliant on the oil industry, □ 
does not articulate how the Petitioner's specific endeavor will impact or make advances to the 
industry as a whole . In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed 
endeavor and that"[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national 
or even global implications within a particular field ." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here,D 
I ldoes not explain what specific benefits the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will add, nor does 
he explain what "advances" the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will make in the industry . 
further noted that the United States has seen an annual decline in the number of graduate 
petroleum engineers which therefore mandates a need for foreign talent to fill this need in the 
workforce . We acknowledge the importance of addressing the nation's shortage of petroleum 
engineers; however, neither[ j nor the Petitioner sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's 
work as a drilling and wells engineer would resolve the shortage or produce an impact rising to the 
level of national importance . 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter from I I an associate professor at __ 
University, who states that the Petitioner 's endeavor will involve providing his technical knowledge 
and skills to U.S. oil and gas companies. I !concludes that the endeavor "has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers and has other substantial positive economic impacts," but does not 
explain the basis for this conclusion or identify the positive economic impacts of which he opines. He 
3 While we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 
also states that the endeavor will "broadly enhance societal welfare, or cultural enrichment," but does 
not explain how he has reached this determination. Although he comments generally on the industry 
as a whole, his letter does not explain how the Petitioner's specific endeavor will impact or benefit the 
industry. Therefore, we agree with the Director's determination that the letters do not offer support 
for the conclusion that that the proposed endeavor has national importance. 
As discussed above, it is not apparent that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor activities would operate 
on such a scale as to rise to the level of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor 
has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such 
claims. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. 
See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. Since the identified basis for denial is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline 
to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under the 
second and third prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are 
not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); 
see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not demonstrate his eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6