dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Oil And Gas Industry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 22, 2024 In Re: 28963266 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a project manager 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's proposed endeavor was of national importance, that the Petitioner was 
well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and, on balance, that it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the job offer and thus the permanent labor certification requirement 1. 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 l&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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States 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). 
1 The Director did conclude that the Petitioner met the underlying EB-2 classification and that his proposed endeavor had 
substantial merit. 
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 ofDhanasar, 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 2, 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. EB-2 Classification 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that he is qualified for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional because he has the foreign equivalent to a bachelor's degree and five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty. The Director concluded in the request for evidence (RFE) that the 
Petitioner qualified for the EB-2 classification based on this reasoning. The record contains evidence 
that the Petitioner obtained the degree "Bachelor in International Relations" in 2007 from 
in Brazil. The record also includes a letter in support of his over five~---------~ years of progressive experience as a project manager in the oil and gas industry; both internationally 
and in the United States. In addition, he submitted an academic evaluation to establish that his foreign 
degree is, "equivalent of a four-year Bachelor of Arts Degree in International Relations from an 
accredited U.S. college or university." We conclude that the record shows by a preponderance of the 
evidence, the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as a professional with an 
advanced degree. 
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. Id. The Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor is to continue to work in the oil and gas industry. The record contains numerous 
industry articles on the importance of this industry to the United States. The articles highlight how 
the oil and gas industry supports the economy and creates jobs. They also highlight how important it 
is for the oil and gas industry to continue to advance renewable energy and how the Petitioner would 
like to continue his work in this industry. We conclude the record establishes this endeavor has 
substantial merit. 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
2. National Importance 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Dhanasar at 889. The term "endeavor" is more specific than the general 
occupation; and we look to the specific work a petitioner will 
undertake within that occupation. In the 
initial petition, it is stated that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to work as a "project manager .. 
. in the U.S. either as an employee or as a consultant .... " On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he 
"methodically explained how he intends to continue working in the field as a project manager" in his 
personal statement and plan. 
However, the record is inconsistent in whether the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor is to be a 
project manager as a consultant or an employee of a company, or if his goal is to continue with his 
current employment or seek an executive role. The Petitioner's personal statement says, "[m]y 
immediate plans ... include providing companies that seek my advice with top-notch consultation 
services .... " However, in the document titled, "Career progression and development strategy," he 
states, "I have the goal of maintaining high-profile employment .... I strive to work for multinational 
companies ... and continue to be a strong contributor to society by means of being an important asset 
in this labor market." And then the Petitioner says, "the objective is to successfully perform my current 
professional roles in the Offshore Oil &Gas market with two important contractors in the industry, 
and gradually shift my career to become an executive or senior manager in a major renewables offshore 
energy-related company .... " With his proposed endeavor lacking specificity and being unclear, it 
is difficult to determine that his endeavor has national importance as these are different endeavors that 
would require separate evidence and analysis. 
On appeal the Petitioner states, that the Director, "[m]istakenly separates Project Managers from this 
industry, implying that the latter's importance is not connected to the former." The Petitioner further 
states, "the Service's attempt to separate the importance of professionals like [himself] from the U.S. 
Offshore Energy industry is fundamentally flawed, as the industry's very existence and continued 
success are intrinsically linked to the work of individuals of his caliber." The Dhanasar analytical 
framework requires the Petitioner to establish the national importance of "the specific proposed 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake," rather than the national importance of the 
overall industry or field. Id. Much of the information in the record relates to aspects of the oil and 
gas industry but not specifically to his work in this area. Here, the Petitioner improperly relies upon 
the importance of the industry in establishing the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
In addition, the Petitioner included information on his extensive experience in the field, along with 
recommendation letters from many of his current and previous colleagues attesting to his experience, 
his work, and his management skills. The appeal states, "the Service[] failed to recognize how the 
effect of the Petitioner's contributions is essential in understanding his impact on the national 
economy." While we see the merit in his past work, and acknowledge his extensive experience, it 
does not further show the national importance of his proposed endeavor as these documents relate to 
the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, where we shift the focus from the proposed endeavor 
to the individual. Dhanasar at 890. While these letters show the contributions the Petitioner has made 
thus far in his career, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence based on these 
recommendation letters to demonstrate the prospective impact of his future proposed endeavor. 
3 
Finally, the Director's decision concluded that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor 
would have, "[i]mplications beyond his employes, their employees or clients, and any entities or 
individuals he intends to work with, to impact the field, industry, or the economy more broadly at a 
level commensurate with national importance." The Petitioner addresses this on appeal by stating, 
"[W]hen the Service questions whether the work performed by the Petitioner has an impact on the 
industry extending beyond his employer, it overlooks the inherently interconnected nature of the 
Offshore Energy Industry." While this may be true, this again goes to the industry as a whole rather 
than the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader 
implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "an undertaking may have national importance for 
example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Dhanasar at 889. 
The record does not elaborate on how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor will cause such 
effects, beyond operating within the field as a whole. Focusing on the importance of the industry itself 
and not the Petitioner's specific endeavor does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor will have 
national or even global implications within a particular field or that it has significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers, as required by Dhanasar . 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision was undue and violated the Administrative 
Procedure Act (AP A), stating that the, "[ v ]ague and generic language in the Denial decision indicates 
that the service did not analyze the provided evidence but manifested an unjustified will to deny The 
Petitioner's case despite all the evidence." The Petitioner does not cite any specific section of the 
AP A that they believe the Director violated; however, the Petitioner claims that the Director may not 
have performed a thorough initial case review before issuing the RFE and used boilerplate language. 
Further, regarding the national importance of the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner states, "[T]he 
Service's claims that the Petitioner did not provide enough evidence of national interest are arbitrary 
and burdened the Petitioner heavily. The Service has not provided clear criteria or guidelines for 
sufficient evidence." 
In reviewing the RFE, we conclude that the Director cites and includes an analysis of the evidence and 
explains why additional evidence is needed in order to show the proposed endeavor's substantial merit 
and national importance. In addition, the Director provided information on the type of documentation 
that could be submitted to further a claim of substantial merit and national importance. The Director's 
decision also dedicates numerous pages to individual pieces of evidence and analyzes the entire record. 
In adjudicating petitions pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard, we examine each 
piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the 
context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 (quoting Matter of EM-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 
1989)). The Director's decision reflects the completion of such an analysis by specifically addressing 
the contents of the Petitioner's documentation and we conclude that the Director followed the 
regulations under 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(8) and 103.3(a)(l)(i). 
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 
4 
hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
therefore 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. 
5