dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Oil And Gas

MATTER OF A-0-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 12, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a global operations training and competency advisor in the oil and gas industry, seeks 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Director, Texas Service Center, 
denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The Petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor 
certification, is in the national interest of the United States. The Director found that the Petitioner 
qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that the 
Petitioner has not established that a waiver of a job offer would be in the national interest. On 
appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(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 Offer-
(i) ... 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. 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-0-
II. ISSUES 
The Petitioner 
received a Master of Science degree in Environmental Microbiology from 
in Nigeria. As the Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree, the sole issue in contention is whether the Petitioner has established that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, 
Congress did not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." Matter of New York State 
Dep't ofTransp. (NYSDOT), 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998), set forth several 
factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. First, a 
petitioner must establish that he seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. ld at 217. 
Next, a petitioner must demonstrate that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. ld Finally, the 
petitioner seeking the waiver must show that he will serve the national interest to a substantially greater 
degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. Jd at 217-18. 
The Director found that the Petitioner's employment as a global operations 
training and competency 
advisor was in an area of substantial intrinsic merit and that the proposed benefits of his work 
concerning human resource management systems for 
functional groups would be national in scope. It remains, then, to determine whether the Petitioner 
will benefit the national interest to a greater extent than an available U.S. worker with the same 
minimum qualifications. 
Although the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must show 
that his past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. !d. at 219. The 
petitioner's subjective assurance that he will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The inclusion of the term "prospective" is used here to require 
future contributions by the petitioner, rather than to facilitate the entry of an individual with no 
demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely 
speculative. Id 
Furthermore, eligibility for the waiver must rest with the petitioner's own qualifications rather than 
with the position sought. Assertions regarding the overall importance of a petitioner's area of 
expertise cannot suffice to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. !d. at 220. At issue is 
whether the petitioner's contributions in the field are of such significance that he merits the special 
benefit of a national interest waiver, a benefit separate and distinct from the visa classification he 
seeks. 
A petitioner must exhibit a past history of achievement with some degree of influence on the field as 
a whole. !d. at 219, n. 6. In evaluating the petitioner's achievements, original innovation, such as 
demonstrated by a patent, is insufficient by itself. Whether the specific innovation serves the national 
interest must be decided on a case-by-case basis. ld at 221, n. 7. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-0-
III. FACTS AND ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on October 22, 2013. At the 
time of filing, the Petitioner was working as a Global Operations Training and Competency Advisor 
for . The Director determined that the 
Petitioner's impact and influence on his field did not satisfy the third prong of the NYSDOT national 
interest analysis. · 
The Petitioner initially submitted documentation pertaining to his exceptional ability in the oil and 
gas industry and its managerial functions. Specifically, he provided his Master of Science degree 
from diplomas from the various letters 
detailing his employment experience, a 
' information concerning his annual 
remuneration from a membership card for the two 
"Recognition and Award" (R&A) honors from and a "Certificate of Appreciation" from 
the Academic records, occupational experience, licenses, salary 
information, professional memberships, and recognition for achievements are elements that can 
contribute toward a finding of exceptional ability. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) - (F). The 
Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree, and an additional finding of exceptional ability would be moot. However, the Petitioner 
must also demonstrate eligibility for the additional benefit of the national interest waiver. 
We note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree of 
expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. Pursuant to 
section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act, aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job 
offer/labor certification requirement; they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. 
NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218, 222. Therefore, whether a given individual seeks classification as an 
alien of exceptional ability or as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, that 
individual cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise significantly above 
that ordinarily encountered in her field of expertise. The national interest waiver is an additional 
benefit, separate from the classification sought, and thus eligibility for the underlying classification 
does not demonstrate eligibility for the additional benefit of the waiver. 
Without documentation showing that the Petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole, we 
cannot conclude that he has demonstrated eligibility for the national interest waiver. See id. at 219, 
n. 6. For example, with respect to the Petitioner's R&A awards from and the Certificate of 
Appreciation from the thanking him for his visit to Israel, there is no 
documentary evidence demonstrating that they are indicative of the Petitioner's impact on the field 
ofhuman resources management or the oil and gas production industry as a whole. In addition, the 
Petitioner submitted various certificates of completion for training courses relating to his 
professional development as a manager and human resources advisor. For instance, he completed 
courses entitled "Fundamentals of Finance and Accounting for Nonfinancial Managers" and 
"Facilitative Leadership: Tapping the Power of Participation." While taking such courses increases 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-0-
one's professional knowledge, there is nothing inherent in the Petitioner's managerial training to 
establish his eligibility for the national interest waiver. 
The Petitioner provided various reference letters discussing his activities in the field. For example, 
Director of Environmental Health and Safety for the 
indicated that the Petitioner's effective project management and employee 
development for project in the achieved a target of 45,000 barrels of oil per 
day and 180,000 barrels of water injection per day, but there is no documentary evidence showing 
that the Petitioner's work affected practices throughout the oil and gas industry or has otherwise 
influenced the field as a whole. 
In addition, mentioned the Petitioner's "unique experience and qualification that helps 
improve employee development in a global operational setting." Specifically, noted 
that the Petitioner "has over 14 years' experience in global field operations in the oil and gas 
industry that has helped employees to perform at the optimum on oil and gas production." Any 
assertion that a petitioner possesses useful skills, or a "unique background" relates to whether 
similarly-trained workers are available in the United States and is an issue under the jurisdiction of 
the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 
221. also indicated that the Petitioner set standards regarding the effective use ofhuman 
resources to achieve targeted goals, and pioneered the development of a "Competency and 
Compliance online management tool" for developing personnel in Nigeria 
and for competency management of and . employees. There is no evidence 
demonstrating, however, that the Petitioner's 
work has had a wider effect on the oil and gas industry 
or has otherwise influenced the field of human resources as a whole. . 
President of Nigeria, asserted that the Petitioner 
effectively delegated responsibilities· among the construction team involved in offshore 
production facility upgrade projects in the · area of Nigeria. In addition, 
noted that the Petitioner's work "resulted in timely completion of the task in readiness for early 
shutdown tie-in work thereby helping to avoid a major crude oil production drop that would have 
cost millions of dollars in losses." There is no evidence showing, however, that the 
Petitioner's work had a substantial impact beyond the company or has otherwise affected the 
industry as a whole. also stated that the Petitioner "facilitated the contractors' 
workshop for in 201 0 with great emphases on Safe Work practices" and that the 
"knowledge gained in the workshop helped in the significant reduction of incidents amongst 
contractors working for '' further indicated that for 2011 costs associated 
with contractor incidents "reduced by over $150 million." The record, nevertheless, does not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's course materials have influenced the field as a whole. For example, 
there is no documentation reflecting that the Petitioner's work had a wider effect on safety practices 
throughout the field and was not just limited to contractors. 
President and Chief Executive Officer of indicated that the 
Petitioner "effectively connects with 
use his proactive initiatives to advise 
partners and community reps and has been able to 
ahead of pending crises such as the numerous 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-0-
communal crises in the area of Nigeria." In addition, mentioned that the 
Petitioner "led the negotiations between and the [ 
] 
partner to approve the remittance of the $500 million previous (sunk) costs to that was 
incurred by on project in Nigeria." While statements show 
that the Petitioner's work affects business operations, there is no documentary evidence 
demonstrating his influence on the field as a whole. 
further stated that the Petitioner "led the Operations Reliability and Maintainability team" 
that successfully implemented the shutdown and upgrade of facilities in a 
timely manner, "thereby helping the Business Unit to save millions of dollars as a result of 
minimized downtime." Although the Petitioner helped generate savings for his business 
unit, there is no indication that his work has affected the industry as a whole. Lastly, 
asserted that the Petitioner "is an expert in competency-based management" and that such expertise 
is a relevant part of U.S. efforts to attain energy sufficiency, but did not provide specific examples of 
how the Petitioner's work has influenced the oil and gas industry or the human resources field as a 
whole. 
With respect to the project, former Training 
Superintendent for Nigeria and current Chairman of in Ghana, 
stated that the Petitioner assisted him in negotiations with government partners to resolve a "delay in 
the approval of the over $40 million training contract for the training of the local 
workforce." indicated that approval of the contract provided with an 
advantage over other multinational companies in terms of staffing in Nigeria and Africa. While the 
Petitioner helped in accelerating approval of the contract, there is no documentary evidence showing 
that his work has had a wider impact beyond and its workforce, or has otherwise influenced 
the field as a whole. 
Furthermore, regarding the Petitioner's experience in crude oil and gas commercialization, 
indicated: "[The Petitioner] was specifically instrumental to the development of the 
which enabled all the various investing partners of the project in 
the Nigerian and to arrive at a workable profit sharing agreement." In 
addition, asserted that "a timely agreement was achieved which helped in 
saving more than $1 billion [in] penalty fines and production losses that would have been incurred as 
a result of [a] pending delay in production should there have been disagreement amongst the 
partners." added that the agreement was an "industry first in Nigeria as many other 
competitors incurred significant losses to long time disputes on [the] production sharing formula." 
aforementioned statements reflected that the Petitioner was instrumental to the 
development of the profit sharing agreement, but there is no evidence 
indicating that the Petitioner's work has affected the field as a whole as to warrant a waiver of the 
job offer. 
Professor of Business Administration at stated: 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-0-
One of the areas where [the Petitioner] has performed impressive work that will 
further the national interest is in his comprehensive work in strategic staffing and 
employee development. ... [The Petitioner] was able to strategically staff in order to 
maximize barrel production, a clear company-specific, industry~wide, and national 
benefit. 
With regard to comments concerning the Petitioner's strategic staffing and employee 
development experience, any objective qualifications which are necessary for the performance of the 
occupation can be articulated in an application for labor certification. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 220-
21. While the Petitioner's work has produced company-specific benefits for does 
not provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's human resources work in Nigeria or the United 
States has resulted in industry-wide or national benefits, or has otherwise influenced the field as a 
whole. 
Furthermore, asserted: 
[The Petitioner] pioneered competency management at and within the global 
oil and gas industry, positing that competency management is critical to develop the 
required proficient work force in oil and gas exploration. As part of these efforts, [the 
Petitioner] developed a competency and compliance online management tool. This 
tool - used to develop employees at in Nigeria -
was cutting-edge and was ultimately adopted for competency management of over 
6,000 employees. 
indicated that the Petitioner developed a competency and compliance online 
management tool for but did not explain how the Petitioner's tool has affected human 
resource practices beyond the company. Again, there is no evidence demonstrating that the 
. Petitioner's work has influenced the field or industry at a level sufficient to waive the job offer 
requirement. In addition, stated that the Petitioner's "development work in competency 
management are not likely to be confined solely to As with many business advances, this 
work - to the extent that it improves productivity and efficiency -holds the promise of improvement 
throughout the energy industry." speculation about 
possible future impact of the 
Petitioner's work does not establish that he had already influenced the industry at the time of filing. 
Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.P.R. § 1 03.2(b )(1 ), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 
14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
Lastly, asserted that the Petitioner's knowledge and talent "places him among the 
world's leading executives in human resource management for the oil and gas industry and has 
enabled him to work throughout the industry to make the industry as a whole more competitive and 
profitable." The record, however, does not include documentary evidence showing that the 
Petitioner's work has had an industry-wide effect, or setting him apart from other executives in 
human resource management for the oil and gas industry. USCIS need not rely on unsubstantiated 
statements. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an 
agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of A -0-
In addition, the Petitioner provided a December 2012 e-mail from 
Nigeria, stating: 
his supervisor in 
One of the items [the Petitioner] was working on prior to his departure [from 
Nigeria] was the incorporation of Operator Driven Reliability [ODR] into day to day 
· operations such that the Business Unit could capture their SERIP [Surface Equipment 
Reliability and Integrity Process] Stage 3 validation. There are several facets to Stage 3 
validation and the ODR component, competing with deliverables under the obligation 
of others, is the first delivered thanks to and his back to back shepherding the 
process. 
While noted that the Petitioner successfully delivered a component of his business 
unit's ODR process, there is no documentary evidence 
demonstrating that his work has affected 
practices throughout the oil and gas industry or has otherwise influenced the field of human 
resources as a whole. further indicated that the Petitioner's performance in Nigeria 
"was above average relative to others in the PSG [Pay Scale Grade] 24 peer group." Even if the 
Petitioner had demonstrated a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in 
his peer group, as previously discussed, he cannot qualify for a national interest waiver just by 
showing exceptional ability in the field. 
The Petitioner submitted letters of varying probative value. We have addressed the specific assertions 
above. Generalized conclusory assertions that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in 
the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 15. In addition, uncorroborated 
assertions are insufficient. See Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) 
(upholding USCIS' decision to give limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in 
the field); Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comrn'r 1988) (holding that an agency 
"may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements ... submitted in evidence as expert 
testimony," but is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's 
eligibility for the benefit sought and "is not required to accept or may give less weight" to evidence 
that is "in any way questionable"). The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; users may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
they support the petitioner's eligibility. !d. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 
2008) (noting 
that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). As the 
submitted reference letters did not establish that the Petitioner's work has influenced the field as a 
whole, they do not demonstrate his eligibility for the national interest waiver. 
The Petitioner's evidence included a November 2013 e-mail inviting him to be "the speaker of 
at the upcoming 
' in June 2014. The invitation and the Petitioner's participation in the conference 
post-date the filing of the Form I-140. Again, eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 
8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, we will not 
consider any presentations given after October 22, 2013, the date the petition was filed, as evidence 
to establish the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing. Furthermore, in regard to the Petitioner's 
presented work, there is no presumption that every conference presentation demonstrates influence 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-0-
on the field as a whole; rather, the Petitioner must document the actual impact of his presentation. In 
this instance, there is no evidence showing that once disseminated through presentation, the 
Petitioner's work has affected the field as a whole. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided documentation of his business trips to offices in 
Canada; , California; and California. The Petitioner also submitted a letter 
thanking him for attending the 
in April-May 2013. 
invitations for him to attend various conferences such as the 
2013), 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided 
(January 
(2014), 
(December 2013), the' 
(2014), and the 
that the latter four conferences post-dated the filing of the Form I-140. 
documentary evidence showing that the Petitioner's business trips for 
various conferences are indicative of his influence on the field as a whole. 
' (2014). We note 
Regardless, there is no 
and attendance at 
The Petitioner's appellate submission includes e-mails from 2013 and 2014 reflecting his involvement 
in hiring and developing candidates for subject matter expert positions at but there is no 
indication that the Petitioner's work had an impact beyopd the company. Again, the submitted 
evidence does not show that the Petitioner's work has affected the field as a whole as to warrant a 
waiver of the job offer. 
Additionally, the Petitioner asserts that his skills, experience, background, and company expertise 
are not amenable to the labor certification process. The inapplicability or unavailability of a labor 
certification, however, cannot be viewed as sufficient cause for a national interest waiver; a 
petitioner still must demonstrate that he will serve the national interest to a substantially greater 
degree than do others in his field. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218, n.5. 
Finally, the Petitioner mentions a previous unpublished decision in which we determined that an 
individual'~ impact "beyond the success and longevity of his own business ventures" was sufficient 
to justify a waiver of the job offer requirement. The Petitioner, however, did not provide a copy of the 
unpublished decision in the classification sought. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in. these proceedings. Matter 
of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l.Comm'r 1972)). The Petitioner has not offered evidence to 
establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in the unpublished decision. 
Furthermore, while 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS 
employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
Regarding the Petitioner's achievements at we accept that his work has provided benefits 
to the company and its project partners. We also acknowledge standing in the oil and gas 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-0-
industry. Nonetheless, the Petitioner has not shown that any of his work with has affected 
human resources practices at other oil and gas entities. Considering the letters and other evidence in 
the aggregate, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's work has influenced the field as a 
whole or that he will otherwise serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would 
an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. The Petitioner has not shown that 
his past record of achievement is at a level sufficient to waive the job offer requirement which, by 
law, normally attaches to the visa classification he seeks. 
A plain reading of the statute indicates that it was not th.e intent of Congress that every advanced degree 
professional or alien of exceptional ability should be exempt from the requirement of a job offer based 
on national interest. Although a petitioner need not demonstrate ~otoriety on the scale of national 
acclaim, he must have "a past history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence 
on the field as a whole." NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 219, n.6. On the basis ofthe evidence submitted, 
the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved labor certification will 
be in the national interest of the United States. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 20 13). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-0~, ID# 14953 (AAO Jan. 12, 2016) 
9