dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Oil And Gas

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-J-T-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 19,2015 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an oil and gas well field superintendent, seeks classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree, and 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. See Section 
203(b)(2) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Director, Texas 
Service Center, denied the petition and a subsequent motion to reconsider. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
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. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding the 
equivalent of 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. 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-J-T-
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." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in 
its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national 
interest by increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the 
United States economically and otherwise . . .. " S. Rep. No. 55, 101 st Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
In reNew York State Dept ofTransportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) 
(NYSDOT), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First, a petitioner must establish that the beneficiary seeks employment in 
an area of substantial intrinsic merit. !d. at 217. Next, a petitioner must establish that the proposed 
benefit will be national in scope. !d. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that 
the beneficiary will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an 
available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. !d. at 217-18. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, a petitioner must establish 
that the beneficiary's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. !d. at 
219. The petitioner's assurance that the beneficiary will, in the future, serve the national interest 
cannot suffice to establish prospective national benefit. The term "prospective " is included here to 
require future contributions by the beneficiary, rather than to facilitate the entry of a beneficiary with 
no demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be 
entirely speculative. !d. 
II. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on June 24, 2013, at 
which time she was working as a completion and well intervention field superintendent for 
In an introductory letter, the Petitioner explained that 
well completion is the process of making a well ready for production, while well intervention 
involves all operations required to manage the production of the well. She indicated that her current 
responsibilities included scheduling and coordination, cost management, supporting field 
supervisors, sourcing and managing contractors , and "instilling an HSE [Health, Safety, and 
Environmental] Culture into the operations ." The Petitioner described her areas of expertise and her 
role in several projects at , highlighting her most significant achievements . She stated that, as a 
renowned expert in well intervention and completion, she is "playing a crucial role in helping US Oil 
and Gas Corporations to safely 
increase their production quota." 
In support of the Form I-140, the Petitioner provided evidence regarding her education, training, and 
her membership in the ·- · and data showing that she earns a high salary 
relative to other mechanical engineers. In addition, the Petitioner submitted four letters from 
colleagues at describing her expertise and attesting to the significance of her achievements.
1 
1 
While we discuss only a sampling ofthese letter s, we have reviewed and considered each one . 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-J- T-
The record reflects that the Petitioner served as completion and well intervention foreman and 
coordinator of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) operations in Wyoming, from 2006 to 2010. 
for stated in an April 1, 2013, letter that 
the Petitioner "led the implementation of simultaneously completing 6 wells at one time," and that 
this "groundbreaking approach" drastically 
increased operational efficiency. In a March 20, 2013, 
letter, , well operations manager for also discussed the cost 
saving benefits of this approach and indicated that the Petitioner went on to successfully lead the 
implementation of multi-well completions for in northern Louisiana. 
Both and also discussed the Petitioner 's work on a water re-use initiative 
for fracking operations in stated that the Petitioner "worked closely with the 
project group to develop a set of end user specifications for a Water Recycle Pump Station that 
would allow the water produced back from the wells to be treated and sent back to support the 
intensive hydraulic fracturing operations, " and that this resulted in environmental and commercial 
improvements. In a March 25, 2013, letter, vice president of wells discipline, 
stated that the Petitioner additionally played a key leadership role on a "successful FEED (Front-End 
Engineering Design) study, for a temporary 15-mile water source pipeline" serving the 
, resulting in a "cost effective solution that had an extremely low environmental impact." 
As an additional accomplishment at described the Petitioner's active involvement 
in the "technical training, mentoring, and overall professional development of our new hires, and 
inexperienced Field Supervisors." He stated that her "extensive technical and professional expertise 
play a critical role in rapid development of professionals in her line of work." 
The Director issued 
a request for evidence (RFE) on September 19, 2013, requesting additional 
documentation to establish "a past record of specific prior achievement with some degree· of 
influence on the field as a whole," and to demonstrate that the Petitioner will serve the national 
interest to a substantially greater degree than an available U.S. worker having the same minimum 
qualifications. In a letter responding to the RFE, the Petitioner discussed her "unique wealth of 
knowledge," and asserted that her achievements at have had "more than 'some' influence" on 
the oil and gas industry. 
The Petitioner submitted new letters from three of her colleagues, each attesting that she has had an 
influence on the field. In an October 29, 2013, letter, stated that "[the Petitioner's] 
work on multi-well completions changed the way major oil producers perform drilling and fracking 
operations," and that her initiatives including the water re-use pump station have been replicated 
within and among other "major operators" in the industry. stated in an October 31, 
2013, letter that the Petitioner's introduction of multi-well completions in the "was 
an important deliverable for both our own organization and competitors operating in this basin." In 
a November 1, 2013, letter, indicated that the Petitioner has "share[d] her learning's 
[sic] through the organization and externally through the industry." 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-J- T-
In addition, the Petitioner provided an October 18, 2013, letter from president 
of , whom she noted has served as an expert witness in oil and gas 
litigation. expressed his opinion, based on a review of her work history, that the 
Petitioner has had a "more than nominal" influence on the industry. He stated that her development 
of "frac" water handling and reuse systems for "impacts our industry as a 
whole along with benefits to our national wellbeing." He also discussed the Petitioner's work on 
multi-well completions , saying: "In order to drill and complete multiple wells from a single location 
it is imperative that thought be given to safety during all operational phases. This is another area 
that [the Petitioner] has pioneered for that is being adopted industry wide." cited 
the Petitioner's active membership in the _ ' as "[a]nother example of 
her influence on the field." Finally, he asserted that HSE culture and practices are "emulated 
throughout the industry" and that "[the Petitioner's] training of field personnel in the 
region is vital to that culture." 
The Director denied the Form I-140 on January 13, 2014, finding that the Petitioner had not 
established sufficient impact on her field to meet the third prong of the NYSDOT national interest 
analysis. The decision acknowledged the supporting statements regarding the Petitioner's 
contributions, but found that the record lacked "independent objective evidence" to support 
assertions that she had influenced the field as a whole. 
On February 14, 2014, the Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider, asserting that expert 
opinion constituted independent objective evidence of her influence, and that the Director's analysis 
held her to a higher standard than that articulated in NYSDOT. The Petitioner submitted a February 
8, 2014, letter from well operations manager for who indicated 
that the safety standards implemented by the Petitioner have been applied "across the industry." He 
stated that a program called which "she insisted on rolling out," has 
since been published as an industry best practice by the 
In addition, stated that the six well pads developed by the Petitioner "were 
replicated by competitors and partners in the Industry." 
The Petitioner also provided a January 22, 2014, letter from president of 
who indicated that he worked closely with her as a specialist service provider. 
stated that the Petitioner "initiated a very successful business of offering [HSE] training to 
contract service providers and staff." He attested that her training allowed his organization to 
improve its safety record and to deliver a safer service to industry clients, including "the largest 
energy operators in the United States." listed other companies to whom the Petitioner 
has delivered training, and stated, "A program with such a wide span has a significant industry 
impact." 
The Director denied the motion to reconsider on March 18, 2015, stating that the Petitioner did not 
cite any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was incorrect, and finding that 
the submitted evidence did not establish eligibility. The Petitioner filed the instant appeal on April 
20, 201"5. She asserts that independent objective opinion that she has influenced her 
field is alone sufficient to establish her eligibility under a preponderance of the evidence standard, 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-J-T-
and that the Director was incorrect to require additional objective evidence to support that opinion. 
The Petitioner notes that, under Matter of Caron International, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 
1988), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is not required to accept an advisory 
opinion "when an opinion is not in accord with other information or is any way questionable." She 
contends that, because the Director has not articulated a reason to question opmwn, 
USCIS must accept that opinion. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the phrase "some degree of influence," which appears in a footnote in 
NYSDOT, does not require an individual's achievements to be "unusual" or "significant," as implied 
by the Director. Rather, she contends that the footnote is subordinate to the statement that persons 
"with no demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be 
entirely speculative" are barred from eligibility for a national interest waiver. She states that 
"[s]ome means more than zero" and asserts that, under a correct reading of NYSDOT, "demonstrable 
achievement takes an alien out of the speculative-benefit-to-the-U.S .-category." 
III. ANALYSIS 
The NYSDOT footnote the Petitioner discusses references a sentence indicating that a petitioner must 
demonstrate "prospective national benefit" by establishing a past record that "justifies projections of 
future benefit to the national interest." The next sentence states that the use of the word prospective 
is not meant to facilitate the entry of an individual "with no demonstrable prior achievements." !d. 
at 219. Footnote 6, which includes the phrase "a past history of demonstrable achievement with 
some degree of influence on the field as a whole," clarifies the level of prior achievement that would 
justifY a projection of future benefit. Accordingly, the Petitioner's contention that the standard set 
forth in NYSDOT grants eligibility to all advanced degree professionals with "some" demonstrable 
past achievement is incorrect. As noted above, the requisite level of prior accomplishment is that the 
individual must have had "some degree of influence on the field as a whole." !d. at 219, n.6. 
As noted by the Petitioner, Matter of Caron International, Inc. held that USCIS need not accept an 
opinion that is questionable or contradicts evidence in the record. However, that decision did not 
indicate USCIS must accept all other advisory opinions as fact or that such opinions alone would 
always be sufficient for meeting the Petitioner's burden of proof. Rather, it stated "[t]his Service 
may, in its discretion, use advisory opinions" as expert testimony. !d. at 795. USCIS may evaluate 
the content of those letters as to whether they supp01t the alien's eligibility. A petitioner must prove 
by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010). The truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality. ld. at 376. 
In this instance, while expressed his opinion that the Petitioner has influenced the field 
as a whole, the content of his letter does not sufficiently demonstrate that influence so as to establish 
the Petitioner 's eligibility without supporting documentation . For instance, he stated that her 
development of water reuse systems "impacts our industry as a whole," but did not specify the 
nature of that impact or identify influential aspects of the water reuse systems that are attributable to 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-J- T-
the Petitioner? also noted the Petitioner's work on multi-well completions, specifically 
her attention to safety during all operational phases, and stated: "This is another area that [the 
Petitioner] has pioneered for that is being adopted industry wide." However, he did not clarify 
whether he means the adoption of the Petitioner's safety precautions by other companies or the 
process of multi-well drilling generally. To the extent he meant that other companies are now 
conducting multi-well drilling, his letter does not state that he credits the Petitioner with creating any 
method or technique used in that process. Rather, he states only that she "has had a great deal of 
individual input benefiting her employer and our industry," without specifying the nature of her 
input. Although other letters also included assertions that the Petitioner's work on multi-well 
drilling has been replicated outside of neither nor the other authors identify 
specific companies that are using her work, and the Petitioner submitted no other documentary 
evidence to support their assertions. Although other letters also included assertions that the 
Petitioner's work on multi-well drilling has been replicated outside of . neither nor 
the other authors identify specific companies that are using her methods or techniques, and the 
Petitioner submitted no other documentary evidence to support their assertions. 
Several letters discussed the Petitioner 's training of field personnel as an area of her work that has 
influenced the field. stated that her training in the is "vital" to 
HSE culture, and that practices are "emulated throughout the industry." However, 
without additional information and evidence, his statements do not demonstrate that the Petitioner is 
responsible for the practices that have been emulated. Similarly, stated that the Petitioner 
has "implemented" safety programs that have become standard practice in the industry, but he did 
not indicate that she was responsible for the development of those programs, nor does the record 
include evidence to support his statements regarding their industry-wide application. 
listed several companies to whom the Petitioner has provided safety training, but without further 
evidence regarding the impact of that training, we find assertions insufficient to 
demonstrate that is has had a degree of influence on the field as a whole. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
A plain reading of the statute indicates that it was not the intent of Congress that every advanced 
degree professional or individual of exceptional ability should be exempt from the requirement of a 
job offer based on national interest. For the reasons discussed above, we find the record insufficient 
to demonstrate that the Petitioner's past record of achievement is at a level sufficient to waive the 
job offer requirement which, by law, normally attaches to the visa classification sought by the 
petitioner. While a petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the scale of national acclaim, the 
national interest waiver contemplates that his or her influence be national in scope. NYSDOT, 22 
I&N Dec. at 217, n.3. Considering the letters and other evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not 
established by a preponderance of the evidence that a waiver of the requirement of an approved labor 
certification will be in the national interest of the United States. 
2 Letters submitted with the Form 1-140 indicated that the Petitioner assisted in developing end user specifications for the 
water recycle pump station and played a leadership role on a study for the water source pipeline. 
Matter of S-J- T-
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 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-J-T-, ID# 14359 (AAO Nov. 19, 2015)