dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 15, 2023 In Re: 28467223 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a project manager, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 
1153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is 
attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 
1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to 
do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded the Petitioner 
qualified as an advanced degree professional, but further determined that he did not demonstrate his 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter ofChristo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal as the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national 
importance. 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. Since this issue is dispositive, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve the remaining issues. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that 
agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the 
ultimate decision)); see also Matter ofL-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). 
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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion 1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a native and citizen of Columbia, intends to work as a project manager in information 
technology, particularly in the oil and gas industry. He provided letters from his former Colombian 
employers in support of the petition reflecting that he worked as a "IM2 Master's Engineer" with 
I I since March 2021 and reviousl as a "Pro· ect Manager ... for I I in the 
Ecosearch platform" with L---------1-----,... _____J from November 2010 to August 
2020. The Petitioner's former employer,._______, stated he was qualified to "contribute to the 
E&P Exploration and Production Industry in the United States" based on his provision of "end-user 
support services such as IT support for the specialized areas of Geology, petrophysical geophysics, 
reservoir engineering and the integration of information for the workflow of the areas of geosciences 
and petrotechnical applications." 
The Director later issued a request for evidence (RFE) stating that the submitted evidence did not 
provide sufficient insight into what the Petitioner intended to do as a project manager working in 
information technology in the United States. More specifically, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate his proposed endeavor had national or global implications in his field 
and requested he submit evidence to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, 
including a detailed description of the proposed endeavor, why it is of national importance, and 
documentary evidence supporting its national importance. The Director farther indicated the 
Petitioner should provide evidence to establish the endeavor's potential prospective impact, such as 
documentation to substantiate how it would have national or global implications in the field, have 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have other substantial economic effects, broadly 
enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment, or impact a matter that a government entity 
has described as having national importance. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted an affidavit stating that he "could contribute with a high level of 
technological innovation ... because of his high level of knowledge in IT [ information technology] of 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 The Director initially stated in the denial decision that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit and that 
the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the endeavor, but that the Petitioner has not established that the endeavor is of 
national impmtance or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer 
and, thus, of a labor ceitification. Later in the decision, the Director stated that they declined to analyze eligibility under 
the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar because "it would serve no meaningful purpose." As previously noted, 
because the first prong determination is dispositive, we have reserved the remaining issues. 
2 
E&P [hydrocarbon exploration], [and] propos[ed] disruptive changes in technological services." The 
Petitioner emphasized that he had established a company in the United States to provide specialized 
information technology support services in the geoscience industry, indicating it would make a 
substantial contribution to the E&P oil exploration and production industry using "disruptive changes 
in technology services such as Petrotecnica Cloud on different technologies from companies such as 
Amazon, Microsoft, and Google." The Petitioner pointed to positions he held as a national 
applications mana er in outsourcin at manager of the I Iof the 
National'-----------,.-------~---' and data management and IT operations manager 
in the oil and gas sector at._______ _. He further stated that he held a postgraduate degree in 
information systems from a university in Columbia. The Petitioner explained his endeavor as follows: 
The challenges of a world that is advancing in a generation and use of clean energy, 
the high pressure of society to make an energy transition with a view to reducing CO2 
emissions, greenhouse gases and the path to carbon neutrality, has forced to maintain 
extractive activity, to have sufficient resources to adapt to this transition, opening path 
to growth opportunities which implied a change of long-term vision, leading to 
technical change of specialized applications currently used, thus I will contribute with 
more than 23 years experience in the energy industry more specifically companies in 
the Oil & Gas Sector. 
The Petitioner stated he would "aid Oil and Gas companies with the application of technologies like 
cloud computing, data-management, and the industrial internet things" and "help companies within 
the energy sector reduce emissions and remain competitive as the world transitions towards renewable 
energy." The Petitioner pointed to a submitted._______________ __. report stating 
that "many CEOs righty view digitization as key to unlocking the gains they seek." 
The Petitioner emphasized that his endeavor would have national importance because it would "have 
a significant impact promoting sustainable energy throughout the United States," citing an industry 
report stating that "digital solutions are poised to best address climate action through tackling 
resilience and adaptive capacity, emissions mitigation and strategic planning." He farther indicated 
that digital solutions could enhance operational efficiencies and have a direct decarbonization impact, 
keep people safe, and facilitate accurate reporting features enabling businesses to understand and 
communicate their sustainability impact. He also cited to a World Economic Forum report opining 
that digital solutions could reduce global emissions by up to 20% by 2050, serving to promote 
sustainable energy, an area of national importance communicated by a Biden-Harris administration 
executive order. The Petitioner explained that he would "promote environmentally and socially 
responsible solutions in the form of digitization," and in tum, better energy practices. 
The Petitioner farther stated that his proposed endeavor would have significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers and reserve and transition jobs in the oil and gas sector, discussing an expert opinion 
submitted b an Associate Professor of Computer Science & Information Systems 
at._______.University . ._______.stated that the Petitioner's endeavor would "help businesses 
and companies in achieving the implementation of new technologies through digital transformation 
and innovation" offering consulting services that will help organizations "increase their productivity, 
apart from saving money, becoming more agile and operating more efficiently." 
3 
In denying the pet1t10n, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner established that his proposed 
endeavor had substantial merit but concluded he did not demonstrate that the endeavor was of national 
importance. The Director stated the Petitioner did not provide evidence to substantiate that his 
endeavor would potentially impact the consulting information technology industry at a national level. 
The Director concluded the Petitioner had submitted no evidence to demonstrate how the endeavor 
would extend beyond his organization and his clients to impact the field more broadly. Likewise, the 
Director determined the Petitioner did not establish that the endeavor would have significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers or reach the level of having substantial positive economic effects. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director incorrectly concluded that he had not provided evidence 
to demonstrate how his proposed endeavor would extend beyond his organization, emphasizing 
articles he submitted in response to the RFE. For instance, the Petitioner contends that the Director 
did not sufficiently consider a provided! lreport titled "Harnessing volatility: Technology 
transformation in the oil and gas" I !Report) and a World Economic Forum article titled 
"Digital solutions can reduce global carbon emissions by up to 20% (World Economic Forum 
Article)." The Petitioner emphasizes that these articles demonstrate how his endeavor would help the 
United States reduce carbon emissions, thereby having national and global implications. He farther 
points to an article from "The Break Through Institute" called "Oil and Gas Assets" (Break Through 
Institute Oil and Gas Assets Article) asserting that this reflects the potential for the Petitioner's 
endeavor to employ U.S. workers and create substantial economic benefit. The Petitioner states that 
his implementation of digital solutions would enable oil and gas companies to reduce emissions, 
aligning with a President Biden executive order titled "Catalyzing America's Clean Energy Economy 
Through Federal Sustainability" (President Biden Executive Order). 
In determining national importance, 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 Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we farther 
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." Id. We also stated that"[ a ]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. 
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. As discussed, the 
Petitioner points to a submitted! !Report and contends this demonstrates that the Petitioner's 
endeavor will allow the United States oil and gas industry to reduce carbon emissions. Upon review, 
thel IReport discusses how digital technologies could help oil and gas industry executives 
cut costs, boost output, and reduce carbon emissions. The report discusses five high level ideas on 
how digitization could aid in this effort. For instance, the report states that according tol 
research, 70% of digitization projects have not moved beyond the pilot phase or are "stuck in the 
pipeline." Similarly, thel !Report indicates that oil and gas executives should be "clear about 
the business problems they wish to address and the results they want to achieve," noting that "digital 
methods are proving to be among the most powerful and cost-effective ways to reduce the industry's 
carbon footprint." Even if we accept the general observations discussed in thel IReport, it is 
not clear how this general overview of digitization in the oil and gas industry relates directly to the 
4 
I 
Petitioner's endeavor and its potential prospective impact on the oil and gas industry on a national 
level. For example, the Petitioner did not articulate or document what technologies or digitization 
methods he would implement to lead to carbon emissions reduction, what oil and gas companies or 
executives he would work with, or how his work would likely lead to a reduction in carbon emissions 
on a national level. 
To further illustrate, thel !Report provides examples of how other oil and gas companies and 
executives explored implementing digitization to bring about efficiencies in their companies. The 
report explained how one refinery and petrochemical company implemented an artificial intelligence 
system to predict the best operating conditions in real time, another energy company built an 
application that reinforcing the adoption of new practices by its frontline operators, and an Asian oil 
company setting out a three-year technology road map designed to support the deployment of more 
than 40 digital technologies use cases unlocking over $175 million in new value. In contrast, the 
Petitioner does not provide anything close to this level of detail to sufficiently understand the 
digitization methods he would be implementing, what companies he would be working with; and in 
tum, what specific proposed value and impact on the oil and gas, and carbon emissions, would result 
from his work. Although this article sets forth several theoretical ways in which digitization could 
assist oil and gas companies with improving their efficiencies and potentially carbon emissions, it does 
little to demonstrate the ways in which the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor would lead to 
improvements in efficiencies and oil and gas companies or a reduction in carbon emissions on a 
national or global scale. 
Similarly, the Petitioner further asserts that the World Economic Forum Article "corroborates the 
national and global implications of the endeavor." The article states that digital technologies could 
reduce carbon emissions by 20% by 2050, by 4-10% by 2030, and that "data transparency, digital 
talent and partnership will be key ingredients to technology adoption at scale." However, again, it is 
not clear how this article relates directly to demonstrating that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
would likely have a potential prospective impact at the national level. For instance, as noted, it is not 
clear what specific technologies the Petitioner would implement, at which companies the technology 
would be implemented, at what scale, and how this would lead to a potential reduction in carbon 
emissions at a national or global level. Although the article reflects that digitization may be an 
intriguing future method to bring about changes in efficiency in the oil and gas industry, and in tum 
potentially reduce carbon emissions, it provides little specificity as to how this would be accomplished. 
Further, the Petitioner does not sufficiently articulate how his endeavor would have a potential 
prospective impact at a national level and lead to innovation in the oil and gas industry and a reduction 
in carbon emissions. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the provided Break Through Institute Oil and Gas Assets Article 
shows how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor "has the potential to employ U.S. workers and [have] 
other substantial economic benefits," noting that the article reflects that "digital solutions directly 
allow for job preservation, and U.S. competitiveness as the global economy transitions to sustainable 
energy." The submitted article discusses broad industry issues facing the oil and gas industry and 
aggregately assesses the potential impact resulting from the implementation of clean energy solutions. 
Again, the Break Through Institute Oil and Gas Assets Article generally analyzes the potential for 
digital solutions to preserve U.S. jobs in the oil and gas industry, but there is little indication or 
evidentiary support as to how the Petitioner's specific endeavor would have significant potential to 
5 
employ U.S. workers or have other substantial positive economic effects, such as creating jobs in 
economically depressed areas. The Petitioner provides little detail on the potential economic impacts 
of his proposed U.S. business, including how many individuals it would likely employ, how much 
revenue it would generate, what specific impacts it would have on the U.S. economy, and what parts 
of the country it would impact. 
The Petitioner also points to the President Biden Executive Order reflecting the U.S. government's 
interest in promoting clean energy industries, including an effort to reduce carbon emissions in the oil 
and gas industry. The Petitioner states on appeal that this order "evidence[s] [the Petitioner's] 
implementation to digital solutions [that] will enable Oil and Gas companies to reduce emissions 
[sic]." However, yet again, the Petitioner did not specifically articulate the digital solutions he would 
implement, what companies he would work and at what scale, and how this would have a national 
impact on reducing carbon emissions in the oil and gas industry. We acknowledge that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor appears generally consistent with President Biden's proposed initiative, but he 
does not sufficiently articulate or document how his proposed endeavor would have a potential 
prospective impact on a national level to effectuate the President's order. 
The Petitioner further emphasizes his over 20 years of experience and knowledge in digital solutions 
within the oil and gas industry to highlight the national importance of his proposed endeavor, pointing 
to the prior positions he held in this industry in Colombia. However, the Petitioner's experience and 
knowledge in and of itself is not relevant to demonstrating its national importance, but whether he is 
well positioned to advance the endeavor. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 892-93. Therefore, we do 
not find the emphasis on his skills and experience on appeal convincing in establishing the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor. 
Lastly, the Petitioner also asserts on appeal that his proposed endeavor would be of national 
importance in promoting U.S. competitiveness in the STEM fields, including emphasizing that the 
endeavor relates to those topics of national importance delineated by the National Science and 
Technology Council (NSTC). The Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor would have 
implications in two advanced computing subfields, namely data management and cloud computing in 
the oil and gas industry. USCIS recognizes the importance of progress in STEM fields and the 
essential role of persons with advanced STEM degrees in fostering this progress, especially in focused 
critical and emerging technologies, or other STEM areas important to U.S. competitiveness or national 
security. We may find that a STEM area is important to competitiveness or security in a variety of 
circumstances, for example, when the evidence in the record demonstrates that an endeavor will help 
the United States remain ahead of strategic competitors or current and potential adversaries, or relates 
to a field, including those that are research and development-intensive industries, where appropriate 
activity and investment, both early and later in the development cycle, may contribute to the United 
States achieving or maintaining technology leadership or peer status among allies and partners. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
However, the Petitioner here only vaguely asserts that the proposed endeavor would have an impact 
on data management and cloud computing, but as we have discussed at length, it does not sufficiently 
articulate how his work will specifically impact these fields on a national level and does not 
sufficiently detail the technologies he would work with. Further, the Petitioner did not explain or 
document how his proposed endeavor would help the United States stay ahead of strategic competitors 
6 
or adversaries or maintain technology leadership or peer status among allies and partners. For these 
reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor based on 
its focus in STEM fields . 
The Petitioner 's statements reflect a vague intention to provide digitization services in the oil and gas 
industry and he widely contends that information technology services could impact the efficiency of 
these companies , as well as potentially carbon emissions. However, the Petitioner has not offered 
sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his information 
technology services and company or that it rises to the level of 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. Dhanasa r, 26 l&N Dec. at 893. 
As noted by the Director, the record does not show that the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond his clientele, which was not made sufficiently clear through his assertion 
sand the submitted evidence. As such, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor 
would have a broad influence commensurate with national importance. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7