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. 14, 2023 In Re: 28125646 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a clean products trader 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 Petitioner is eligible 
for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that the 
record did not establish that a waiver of that classification's job offer requirement would be in the 
national interest. 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 l&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: 
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 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a clean rroducts (refined petroleum product such as kerosene or diesel) trader who 
has been employed with Isince 2017 and with its parent company in 
Brazil since 2010. He proposes to continue working in this capacity in the United States, whether with 
Dor a different company in the oil and gas industry. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced Iegree. 
1
ased upon his completion of a baccalaureate level degree 
in chemical engineering from the University! lin Brazil and the evidence of 
more than five years of progressive, post-baccalaureate work experience, we agree. Thus, the sole 
remaining issue is whether the Petitioner merits a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. 
As detailed below, we conclude that he has not established that his proposed endeavor is of national 
importance, and that he therefore does not meet all three prongs under the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
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. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director concluded that based upon the proposed endeavor's importance to the Petitioner's 
employer's sale of petroleum and diesel products, as shown by reference letters and other evidence 
including industry reports, it is of substantial merit in the area of business. We agree. 
Turning to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, the Director noted that while 
much of the evidence focused on the Petitioner's expertise and experience in his field, these factors 
are considered in the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework in determining whether he 
is well placed to advance the endeavor, and are therefore not applicable to the first prong. Further, the 
Director determined that the potential benefits of the proposed endeavor had not been shown to reach 
beyond the Petitioner's employer and its clients, and thus did not show a broader impact on the oil and 
gas industry. 
On appeal, the Petitioner presents several arguments in asserting that the Director erred in concluding 
that his proposed endeavor is not of national importance. He first asserts that the Director's decision 
used vague and generic language and included "conflicting claims." But the Petitioner does not 
provide examples of any conflicting claims in the decision's analysis of the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor, nor can we identify any such statements. We also disagree with the former 
assertion, as the decision summarizes the evidence submitted, including a description of several points 
2 
made in reference letters written by the Petitioner's colleagues and other experts in the oil and gas 
industry. It also explains why several arguments made by the Petitioner in his initial submission as 
well as his response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) do not demonstrate the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner next asserts that the Director erred in separating his proposed endeavor as a clean 
products trader from the oil and gas industry, "implying that the latter's importance is not connected 
to the former." However, the Director's decision is entirely in line with the precedent decision, 
wherein we stated that it is "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake" that 
is at issue under the first prong of the analytical framework. Dhanasar at 889. In other words, a 
petitioner cannot rely solely upon the national importance of the particular field or industry in which 
they work to demonstrate that their proposed endeavor meets the requirements of this prong. Similar 
to our conclusion in Dhanasar that that petitioner's proposed work as a teacher in STEM disciplines 
would not broadly impact the field of STEM education, and thus was not of national importance 
despite STEM education being of substantial merit, here the Petitioner cannot show the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor simply by his proposed employment in the oil and gas industry. 
The Petitioner also argues that, as a group, clean products traders are critical to the industry, and that 
his endeavor "mitigates the negative impacts of market volatility on oil companies and, as such, is 
essential to keep thousands ofjobs." Just as the Petitioner cannot rely on the impact of the oil and gas 
industry to demonstrate the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor, he also cannot rely 
on the cumulative effect of all workers in the same profession. And while his work may contribute to 
company growth as he claims, this would not demonstrate the necessary broader impact on the industry 
or field to show national importance. 
As for whether the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor will affect job creation and retention, we 
note that an endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have other substantial 
positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, may be of national 
importance. Id. at 890. Here, the Petitioner asserts such a potential effect through his proposed 
endeavor's impact on the operations of oil refineries in the U.S., which he links to the creation of 
thousands ofjobs. He claims that his work in gasoline blending is critical to optimizing the operations 
ofrefineries, which is important for job creation and preservation in the oil and gas industry. However, 
these assertions regarding his direct impact on job creation are not supported by the evidence. While 
several of the reference letters, including those from I 
describe the role of traders such as the Petitioner in the export of petroleum products from refineries 
in the United States, and discuss the Petitioner's expertise as a trader, they do not suggest that his 
specific proposed endeavor will directly or substantially impact the hiring or retention of workers at 
those refineries. 
Also, in asserting his endeavor's national importance, the Petitioner discusses his network of contacts 
in the oil and gas industry, particularly in Latin America, and his "expertise in gasoline blending, 
project management, and business development." He also states that his "track record of spearheading 
projects that generated substantial revenue" demonstrates his potential to provide substantial positive 
economic benefits to the U.S. economy. But these statements relate to his skills and record of success 
in similar efforts, factors which are considered when evaluating a petitioner's positioning to advance 
their proposed endeavor under the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. Id. As noted above and 
3 
I 
in the Director's decision, the first prong focuses on the specific proposed endeavor's potential 
prospective impact, and does not include an evaluation of a petitioner's qualifications, support, and 
commitment to advance that endeavor. 
The Petitioner also asserts in several instances in his brief that the interconnectedness of the oil and 
gas industry means that technology advancements and efficiency gains are shared "throughout the 
entire supply chain, benefitting a multitude of companies" beyond his employer. He suggests that his 
expertise in gasoline blending "can lead to improved efficiency and cost savings for his employer, 
which may, in tum, prompt other companies to adopt similar practices or innovations." But in 
describing his proposed endeavor, he does not indicate that he would actively work to disseminate his 
knowledge, processes, formulas, or other work product to others within the industry, particularly to 
the extent that this would result in a measurable broader impact. 
For all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that his 
proposed endeavor is of national importance, and he has therefore not shown that he meets the 
requirements of the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner also argues on appeal that he meets Dhanasar' s second and third prongs by showing 
that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor and that, on balance, a waiver of the job 
offer requirement would be in the national interest. However, as he does not meet the first prong of 
the Dhanasar analytical framework, he has not established his eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
As this is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the issue of his 
eligibility for the remaining prongs. 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 of L-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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4