dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Geoscience

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17587554 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 26, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a geoscientist, 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 offer 
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). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding 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. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova 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) 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 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 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. 
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 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 national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Dep 't ofTransp., 
22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 
considered must, taken together, indicate 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 in the field of 
geological research and development, the Director concluded that the record does 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 Petitioner initially described the endeavor as a general plan "to continue working in the field of 
advanced [ e ]xploration [g]eology." The Petitioner also submitted a resume, indicating that, from "Jan 
2015-Present," he has worked as an "[e]xploration [g]eoscientist" and that his duties involve 
"[ d]elivering structural models and providing geological input in the velocity building process to the 
depth imaging team" on a "[ m ]ulticlient [p ]roj ect" for his employer. Although the Petitioner also 
submitted various letters of recommendation from his coworkers, he did not initially elaborate further 
on what the proposed endeavor would entail. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a one-page personal 
statement, in which he reiterated that the endeavor is a plan "to continue doing work as an [ e ]xploration 
[g]eoscientist in the [ o ]il & [g]as [ s ]ector." The Petitioner elaborated that his existing, and continuing, 
"responsibilities include providing technical and operational knowledge and guidance on seismic 
interpretations for the large-scale oil and gas projects as well as delivering structural models and 
providing geological input in the velocity building process, and other related activities." 
In the decision, the Director concluded the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, observing that "the evidence of record does not convey an understanding of how 
the [P]etitioner's proposed employment activities stand to have a broader impact on his field." The 
Director further observed that the record does not "establish[] that [the Petitioner's] proposed work 
has implications beyond his employer ( or any prospective employers), its business partners, alliances, 
and/or clients and customers at a level sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of his 
endeavor." 
On appeal, paragraphs numbered 10-1 7 of 1 7 total paragraphs appear to address the issue of national 
importance. We note that paragraphs numbered 10-14 consist of language that appears verbatim on 
page 5 of the brief submitted in response to the Director's RFE. The Petitioner further asserts that he 
is employed by "one of the world's most influential and innovative companies" and that "the United 
States is now #1 in Oil & Gas ... because of the success of great engineers like [the Petitioner" 
( emphasis omitted). The Petitioner also references the number of citations his research has received. 
The Petitioner concludes by comparing his citations to those of the petitioner in Dhanasar, asserting 
that "approving [the Petitioner's] case is both legally & morally the right thing to do," and asserting 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-9L for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 
that the Petitioner has satisfied the preponderance of evidence standard m paragraphs 15-17, 
respectively ( emphasis omitted). 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the 
"specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 889. Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by 
the first prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" and endeavors that 
have broader implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
The Petitioner's endeavor of exploration geology benefits his employer and its clients; however, the 
record does not establish how the endeavor would have broader implications in terms of significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or have substantial positive economic effects, beyond the Petitioner's 
employer and its clients, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. at 889. Petitioners bear 
the burden of articulating how they satisfy eligibility criteria. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361. 
The Petitioner's assertions both in response to the Director's RFE and on appeal suggesting that the 
Director presented a "notion that only work in the [p]ublic [s]ector or [n]on-[p]rofit [s]ector (such as 
a [u]niversity) benefits the nation" are not supported by the record. Neither the RFE nor the decision 
state that only work in the public or non-profit sector may have national importance. Similarly, the 
Petitioner's assertions both in response to the RFE and on appeal that the Director espoused "a classic 
example of Leftist Economic Dogma" is not supported by the record ( emphasis omitted). Instead, 
both the RFE and the decision observe that the record does not establish how the endeavor would have 
substantial positive economic effects broader than benefitting the Petitioner's employer and its clients, 
referencing language from the Dhanasar precedential decision. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-
90. 
Additionally, the Petitioner's assertions both in response to the Director's RFE and on appeal 
regarding his employer's influence and the United States' prominence in the broad field of "oil and 
gas" do not address how the actual endeavor the Petitioner would pursue-namely, "providing 
technical and operational knowledge and guidance on seismic interpretations for the large-scale oil 
and gas projects as well as delivering structural models and providing geological input in the velocity 
building process, and other related activities"-would have substantial positive economic effects 
broader than benefitting the Petitioner's employer and its clients. See id. Nor does the record establish 
that any benefit of his work to his employer would rise to the level of national importance. Likewise, 
although the Petitioner's research citation history relates to the second Dhanasar prong, it does not 
address whether the endeavor would have broader, substantial positive economic effects, as 
contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong, and therefore is not eligible for a national interest waiver. 
We reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make 
4 
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 the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5