dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Oil And Gas

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 21, 2024 In Re: 30663091 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a mergers and acquisitions professional in the oil and gas industry, seeks employment­
based second preference (EB-2) 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 
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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner is eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The 
matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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 I&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 qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petition must first establish they are an 
advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. bachelor 's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
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 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. EB-2 Classification 
The Petitioner is a mergers and acquisitions professional in the oil and gas industry. He submitted a 
diploma and transcripts for his master's degree in business administration from the ____
I I The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree and we agree. 
B. National Interest Waiver 
1. Substantial Merit 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. The Petitioner, "[i]ntends to perform ... duties in an executive role with a U.S. private 
equity fund, investment bank, management consulting firm or analytic agency that engages in, or 
advises on, Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A) in the international oil and gas sector." The record 
contains industry articles and reports on current issues facing the oil and gas industry and its impact 
on the economy. We conclude the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
2. National Importance 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Id. The Director determined that the record did not establish that the proposed 
endeavor is of national importance as the Petitioner did not provide a detailed description of the 
proposed endeavor and why it is of national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that, "[a] 
review of the Proposed Endeavor set forth in the Initial Submission shows it is, in fact, highly detailed, 
with 12 separate bullet points, explaining the duties .... " The duties were submitted within the initial 
attorney letter, but its national importance was not further corroborated with independent and objective 
evidence. We note that unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute evidence. See, e.g., Matter ofS­
M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998) ("statements in a brief, motion, or Notice of Appeal are not 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight"). In the request for evidence (RFE), the 
Director requested a separate detailed description of the proposed endeavor and why it is of national 
importance. However, the record does not show that a separate detailed description or other similar 
evidence was submitted in response to the RFE. Instead, the Petitioner's response includes an attorney 
statement and additional expert opinion letters. As stated above, the submitted description of the 
proposed endeavor is not enough to constitute evidence and the Petitioner must support his assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. Further, 
in determining national importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Even ifwe consider the duties, they do not 
sufficiently establish the specific endeavor. For example, the duties include "us[ing] expertise in the 
financial aspects of M&A deals in the oil and gas industry to identify and vet entities for the U.S. 
company to acquire or partner with." He later asserts that the Petitioner's "ultimate goal is to help 
further develop the U.S. oil & gas industry in order to enhance U.S. energy security, reduce costs of 
oil and gas for both commercial and consumer use; create thousands ofjobs, and substantially increase 
U.S. GDP through providing the U.S. with secure access to reliable sources of oil and gas resources." 
While these are laudable goals, the record does not contain sufficient detail and evidence to 
substantiate his claims. 
The Director concluded that the industry articles and reports provided useful background information 
but were of limited value to determining national importance. The Petitioner asserts that the industry 
articles and reports in the record are highly relevant to the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor. He states that the articles "confirm the value of. ..the Proposed Endeavor" in the areas 
mentioned above such as increasing U.S. GDP and job creation. As mentioned above, in determining 
national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in 
which the individual will work; instead, we focus on, "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." Id. We recognize the value and importance of the industry; however, working 
in the industry is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Here, the 
Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry to establish the national importance 
of his proposed endeavor. Although the industry reports and articles provide information about the 
industry; without sufficient documentary evidence of the specific proposed endeavor's broader impact 
on the industry, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the "national importance" element 
of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
The record contains several letters written by professionals in the Petitioner's industry who attest to 
his credentials, education, and experience. For example, there is one letter that details a specific 
complex negotiation deal the Petitioner successfully completed. Another letter written by someone 
who has knowledge of the Petitioner's reputation in the field, states that the Petitioner is, "[a]mong 
the most prominent M&A professionals in the oil and gas and capital market sector in Russia" and is 
a, "leading figure in the Russian oil & gas market." A former colleague describes him as, "[w]idely 
recognized by various industry leading experts to be one of the best oil & gas M&A experts in his 
field." The Petitioner asserts that the letters documenting his experience and past success are proof of 
the national importance of his proposed endeavor as he is, "[l]ikley to succeed at the same or similar 
level in the U.S. based on his expertise in the field .... " However, evidence of the Petitioner's past 
success and experience is relevant to Dhanasar 's prong two analysis, on whether the petitioner is well­
positioned to advance the endeavor. It does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as its focus is on the Petitioner's qualifications and not the endeavor's prospective impact. 
3 
Therefore, evidence of the Petitioner's past experience, even if successful, does not sufficiently 
establish the national importance of proposed endeavor. 
Similarly, the Petitioner points to the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)'s 
statement, "[w ]ithout a stable energy supply, heal [sic] and welfare are threatened and the U.S. 
economy cannot function." The Petitioner then says he, "[h]]as a deep knowledge of energy resources 
and has the ability to vet those potential resources." This again goes to his credentials, education, and 
experience which are relevant to prong two analysis but not national importance as its reasoning 
focuses on the Petitioner's qualifications and not the endeavor's prospective impact. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not established that his endeavor had, "significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers" or "other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area" as set forth in Dhanasar. Dhanasar at 890. The Petitioner points to the 
letters in the record from colleagues and experts that state his proposed endeavor has the potential to 
lead to, "hundreds (or more) new U.S. jobs, and to vast positive economic benefits to our country." 
He states that these predictions are based on his experience. As stated above, past experience does not 
sufficiently demonstrate the prospective impact of the proposed endeavor. Additionally, the record 
lacks a plan with detailed proposed outcomes. It speaks ofjob creation in very general terms but lacks 
specificity. For example, there is no information about what types of jobs his specific proposed 
endeavor will create, where they will be created, how that will impact the economy, and if it will 
impact an economically depressed area. Although the record shows the industry tends to have an 
economic impact and create jobs when successful, the record lacks specific details on the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor and how he intends to create jobs and impact the economy. 
The Director found that the Petitioner's endeavor did not have implications beyond his employer and 
the Petitioner states that this is "unsupported, erroneous, and conclusory." As stated above, the record 
does not include a detailed proposed endeavor statement and does not establish its prospective impact. 
The statement does list some proposed duties such as, "[ d]evelop and implement inorganic forth 
policies to underpin the overall strategy of my employer" or "[ r ]eview contract terms for various 
transactions to ensure compliance with applicable regional, national and international laws and 
treaties." The record shows the broad implications of the industry the Petitioner works within; 
however, it does not establish the broad implications of the specific proposed endeavor outside of his 
prospective employer. Similarly, 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. Id. at 893. Therefore, as the record does not establish the broader impact of the Petitioner's 
specific endeavor, we agree that the record does not establish the proposed endeavor will have broader 
implications beyond his prospective employer. 
While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered the 
record in its entirety. As the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because the 
identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. 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-
4 
, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where the 
applicant did not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
ITT. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
therefore conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner has not established that he 
is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5