dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Oil And Gas Industry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 30, 2023 In Re: 29048947 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner is a project manager in the oil and gas industry who 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 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 although the Petitioner 
qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, the record does not establish 
that he qualifies for a national interest waiver. The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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. 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 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; 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
We agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. 2 Therefore, the issue before us on appeal is whether the Petitioner has 
established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in 
the national interest. 
The Director concluded that while the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit, he did not establish that the endeavor is of national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar 
prong. The Director also found that the Petitioner did not establish that he is well positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor, and 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. Upon de novo review, we agree 
with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that a waiver of the labor 
certification would be in the national interest, as the Petitioner has not established that his specific 
proposed endeavor has national importance. 3 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. In determining an endeavor's 
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 "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake," taking into consideration the proposed endeavor's potential 
prospective impact. 4 Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor that has national or 
global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances, may have national importance. Id. Additionally, an 
endeavor that is regionally focused may nevertheless have national importance, such as an endeavor 
that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area. Id. at 890. 
In his initial supporting statement, the Petitioner discussed his education and experience working "in 
different projects related to the scheduled maintenance of [r]efining of [ c ]rude [ o ]il plant shutdowns." 
Given the Petitioner's prior education and experience, he stated that his proposed endeavor is to 
"continue working as a Project Manager" in the U.S. oil and gas industry. 5 In response to a request 
2 To demonstrate he is an advanced de ree rofessional, the Petitioner submitted his degree ce1tificate and corresponding 
transcript from the Universidad '----------.-------.-------' He also provided an employment 
verification letter from the human resources office of.__ ____.., stating that he was employed at that organization's 
._________ ~in the position of "Major Mechanical Technician" from January 2006 until September 2015. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree and at least five years 
of progressive experience in his specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3). 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 An endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurial ism, science, technology, 
culture, health, or education. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 889. 
I 
5 The record 
I
contains an employment offer letter offering the Petitioner a full-time position at._________ ~ 
where his duties would include preparing proposals, changing order forms, purchasing materials, securing 
subcontractors, and directing field personnel "on all project issues." 
2 
for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner elaborated farther on his endeavor, stating that he seeks to develop 
"an innovative maintenance plan based on Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) using Artificial 
Intelligence (AI) and incorporating Root Cause Analysis (RCA) for critical equipment in a refinery 
for the national interest and U.S. competitive riser [sic] in the oil and gas sector, as well as participating 
in the research projects existing actually in the U.S. in this field." 
As supporting evidence, the Petitioner provided a study discussing the impact of digitization on 
manufacturing and articles discussing Chevron's and Shell oil companies' respective uses of AI. The 
Petitioner did not explain the relevance of either the study or the articles, none of which specifically 
discussed the Petitioner's endeavor or mentioned his use of RCM and RCA methodologies as part of 
an oil refinery maintenance plan. 
Although the Petitioner provided five other articles asserting that they support his claim concerning 
the national importance of his endeavor, he did not substantiate this assertion with forth er explanation. 
As with the previously mentioned study and two articles on AI, none of the five articles mentioned the 
Petitioner's specific endeavor. While two of the articles focus on the use of AI, neither discussed the 
use of AI in the context of oil refinery maintenance. Of the remaining articles, one focused on "Smart 
Manufacturing" and listed programs and research on this topic; another discussed research projects 
headed by the U.S. Department of Energy; and the third article discussed a health management project 
headed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. In sum, the submitted articles made no 
mention of the Petitioner's endeavor to use AI in conjunction with RCM and RCA methodologies to 
improve maintenance shutdowns within the context of oil refineries. As such, there is no evidence that 
these articles support the Petitioner's claim that his proposed endeavor has national importance. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided a professional plan that farther discusses the proposed endeavor 
and its objective to "facilitate timely maintenance intervention, reduce unexpected downtime, and 
minimize the financial impact of unit failures." The plan does not specify what portion of the 
Petitioner's time would be devoted to research, nor does it offer a blueprint for disseminating any 
research findings throughout the oil and gas industry. Rather, the professional plan offers vague claims 
about the Petitioner's intent to "[c]ollaborate with ongoing research projects in the United States" and 
"[s]hare knowledge and expertise gained through hands-on experience." The plan does not, however, 
specify any research projects or state precisely how the Petitioner plans to "share his knowledge and 
expertise." Moreover, because the Petitioner has indicated that his proposed endeavor will involve 
working for a U.S. oil company, it is unclear how the prospective impact of the Petitioner's work, 
research or otherwise, would extend beyond the prospective employer and rise to a level that would 
be commensurate with having national importance. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the prospective impact of the Petitioner's 
endeavor "would be localized to prospective employers and customers," noting that the Petitioner did 
not explain how his work as a project manager would broadly impact his field. The Director also 
found that the Petitioner did not show that his endeavor would offer substantial economic benefits to 
the region where it operates or to the nation. And although the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's 
submission of an updated personal statement where he elaborated on his future plans, the Director 
pointed to the lack of evidence supporting those plans. 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner further describes his endeavor's objective to combine RCM, RCA, and AI 
to develop "an advanced predictive maintenance plan to reduce unplanned outages that affect 
production, largely due to mechanical failures that are not part of a company's scheduled 
maintenance." The Petitioner highlights the importance of maintenance management and contends 
that his endeavor to use RCM, RCA, and AI to create a maintenance management plan will result in 
"substantial positive economic effects," such as reduced crude oil production prices and increased 
profits for companies that produce crude oil. However, the Petitioner does not explain how his plan 
would more broadly impact the oil refinery industry or the nation, as claimed. And while the Petitioner 
explains the benefits of preventing an unplanned shutdown at an oil refinery, he does not discuss a 
means for broadly disseminating his maintenance plan within the oil and gas industry. As such, the 
Petitioner has not established that the benefits of his plan would extend beyond his prospective 
employer, thus resulting in a "substantial positive economic effect" that would be commensurate with 
national importance. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
Likewise, the Petitioner's claim that his proposed endeavor has national or even global implications 
for his field is also unsubstantiated. In support of this claim, the Petitioner contends that his proposed 
endeavor will: 1) "contribute to technological advancement in the refinery industry and in the 
economic sectors" that rely on refinery products; 2) "boost regional economic development and 
diversify local economies"; and 3) support refineries in the oil and gas industry. However, as already 
discussed, the Petitioner does not explain how he will distribute his plan to refineries within the oil 
and gas industry. Although the Petitioner asserts that his endeavor "will get the interest of potential 
customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities," neither his previously submitted professional 
plan nor his statements on appeal provide a specific blueprint for plan distribution on a broader scale. 
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance 
of her proposed endeavor, and thus he has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. Because the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor meets the national 
importance requirement of the first prong, we need not address and hereby reserve our opinion regarding 
whether he has established eligibility under the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to 
make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also 
Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal 
where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, because the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework related to national importance, we conclude 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. 
4