dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Oil And Gas Industry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 27, 2023 In Re: 28603622 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a production engineer in the oil and gas industry, seeks second preference 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 immigrant 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 did not 
establish that he qualifies for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or that he is eligible for a national interest waiver. We dismissed a subsequent appeal, where 
we applied the analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar for adjudicating national interest 
waiver petitions. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). Contrary to the denial, 
we concluded that the Petitioner is eligible for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional. Notwithstanding this favorable determination regarding the Petitioner's EB-2 
classification, we determined that the Petitioner did not establish that his endeavor has national 
importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework and thus we concluded that the Petitioner 
did not overcome the denial regarding his eligibility for a national interest waiver. 1 The matter is now 
before us on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
First, we tum to the motion to reopen, which must state new facts and be supported by documentary 
evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii) . We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate 
eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) 
(requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
1 We declined to reach whether the Petitioner meets the remainder of the second and third prongs under the Dhanasar 
framework, citing the first prong as being dispositive of the appeal. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
(finding it unnecessary to analyze additional grounds when another independent issue is dispositive of the appeal); see also 
Matter ofL-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). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits copies of two unpublished AAO decisions and a copy of a 
previously submitted paper containing information that was intended for presentation at a 2007 oil 
conference in Mexico. Regarding the latter, because the paper was previously submitted and reviewed 
as part of the appeal process, it is not considered new evidence and does not meet the requirements of 
a motion to reopen. 
The Petitioner also provides copies of two of our unpublished decisions, which he references in his 
legal brief. First and foremost, we note that while 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that our precedent 
decisions are binding on USCIS, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. And even if we 
were to disregard the non-precedent status of the cited decisions, the Petitioner has not established that 
the facts in the present matter are analogous to those in the unpublished decisions where we sustained 
one appeal and remanded the other for further consideration by the Director. We note that the latter 
decision did not include a first prong analysis under the Dhanasar framework, which was the basis for 
our decision to dismiss the appeal in this matter. And in the matter of the sustained appeal, our decision 
lists a detailed iteration of the proposed endeavor. Conversely, our decision in this matter states that 
one key deficiency was that "the Petitioner does not directly state what his future work would involve, 
other than that he will work in the field of production engineering in the oil and gas industry." 
In light of the deficiencies described above, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to merit 
a reopening of this matter. 
Next, we tum to the Petitioner's motion to reconsider, which must establish that our prior decision 
was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review 
on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant 
motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
In our prior decision, we determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his endeavor: 
(1) would broadly impact the oil and gas industry, (2) has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, 
(3) or that it otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. On motion, the 
Petitioner does not adequately address these deficiencies and instead contests the correctness of our 
prior decision based on the assertion that we "improperly and incorrectly increased the difficulty of 
satisfying the 'National Importance' criterion" in opposition to Dhanasar, which the Petitioner claims 
"is easier to satisfy" than the "national in scope" criterion in the now-vacated case of Matter ofNew 
York State Dept. of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). The 
Petitioner further contends that "the AAO must explain, in writing, how and or whether the Dhanasar 
case increased the legal difficulty of satisfying the 'National in Scope/National Importance' criterion." 
The Petitioner does not, however, cite to any legal authority for these arguments or offer evidence to 
support the claim that the effect of the Dhanasar framework was to "makes it easier" to satisfy 
NYSDOT' s "national in scope" criterion. And although the Petitioner claims to "understand[] that 
the Dhanasar standard is now the rule for NIW cases," his reference to the "National in Scope/National 
Importance" criterion is inconsistent with that claimed understanding as it indicates that the Petitioner 
sees these as interchangeable more so than as two distinct standards. 
2 
We also note that while Dhanasar seeks to "to avoid overemphasis on the geographic breadth of the 
endeavor," it nevertheless highlights the importance of demonstrating the breadth of an endeavor's 
implications through key characteristics, such as "national or even global implications" of an endeavor 
or an endeavor's potential for "substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically 
depressed area." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 884-85. As determined in our prior decision, 
the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor possesses these characteristics. Nor has the 
Petitioner established on motion that we incorrectly applied these characteristics to the facts and 
evidence presented on appeal. 
Lastly, we decline to grant with the Petitioner's request that we conduct an analysis under the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. Because we have concluded that the Petitioner has not established 
that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy when the decision was 
issued, he continues to be ineligible for a national interest waiver under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. We therefore do not need to reach a determination as to whether he meets the remainder 
of the second and third prongs. See INSv. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (finding it unnecessary 
to analyze additional grounds when another independent issue is dispositive of the appeal); 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). 
Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility. On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established 
that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued 
our decision. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3