dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Petroleum Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF O-A-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN.31,2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a petroleum engineer, 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 classification. · See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). After a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 
classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 
grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: ( 1) that the foreign rn;1tional 's proposed 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign n~tional is well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) 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. Matter cjf 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the. Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, finding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree, but that he had not established that· a waiver of the required job offer, 
and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner appealed the matter to us, and we dismissed the appeal. 1 The matter is now before us 
on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. For the reasons discussed below·, we will deny ·the 
motions. 
I. LA.W 
; 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and a motion to reopen 
is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The requirements of a motion to reconsider are 
located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), and the requirements of a motion to reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility 
for the requested immigration benefit. · 
I . 
See Matter qf O-A-A-. ID# 12856.16 (AAO July I 0, 2018). 
.
Matter qf O-A-A-
II. ANALYSIS 
After filing the petition, the Petitioner provided'a "statement of intent" indicating that he is "currently 
working as a petroleum engineering data scientist in a premier independent oil and gas company." 
He stated that he is currently employed by an oil and gas company with $12 billion 
in annual revenue.2 In addition, the Petitioner submitted .a May 2017 employment verification letter . . 
from stating that he "works as an Evaluation and Planning [E&P] Professional in the 
·E&P Analytics Department" and that his work for the company "involves helping our subsurface 
business unit integrate, model, predict, and analyze complex data, as well as other related activities." 
He maintained that he intends to continue his work in the field of petroleum engineering "with an 
emphasis on data science/data analytics." He also expressed his desire to "continue conducting 
independent research in the fieid of carbon sequestration." 
In our prior decision, we noted that the Petitioner did not sufficiently clarify how his work 
performing petroleum engineering services as an E&P professional for related to his 
proposed research. We found that the record did not show that his proposed petroleum engineering 
and data science work for has implications beyond this company and its business 
· partners at a level sufficient to demonstrate its national irpportance under the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical .framework. Furthermore, while we determined that the Petitioner's proposed 
carbon sequestration research and development has both substantial merit and national importance, 
we found that he had not sufficiently demonstrated that he is well positioned to advance this endeavor.. 
Accordingly, h~ did not meet the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. 3 
A. Motion to Reconsider 
On motion, the Petitioner contends that our appellate decision "establishes a de facto job requirement 
which is legally incorrect" and that eligibility for a national interest waiver "is based on expertise, 
not where the person is currently working." Our decision, however, did not indicate or imply that a 
job offer was required under the Dhanasar analytical framework. As noted in our decision, we 
considered information about the Petitioner's cmTent and prospective positions to illustrate the 
capacity in wh~ch · he intends to work in order to determine whether his proposed continuation of 
petroleum engineering work met the requirements of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. In 
addition, we consider a petitioner's "expertise" among other factors under Dhanasar's second prong 
in determining whether he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
2 We explained in our appellate decision that because the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, 
it is not necessary fqr him to have a job offer from a specific employer. . . . · 
·1 As noted by the Director, the Petitioner's experience as a petroleum engineering data scientist with 
began after ~e filed the instant petition and therefore does not demon·strate his eligibility under the second prong of the 
Dhanasar analysis at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(I). Regardless, the record did not indicate that the 
Petitioner was conducting his proposed research as part of his employment with nor did it othenvise 
show how this position _renders him well p6sitioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
2 
.
Matter of O-A-A~· 
The Petitioner further argues that that we "massively and incorrectly overestimated the government 
interest in Dr. Dhanasar' s rese~rch" in our precedent decision.4 He asserts that "[i]n 2017 
had revenue in excess of $13 billion" while the university where Dr. Dhanasar worked received 
only "$11 million of government funded research. "5 The Petitioner further contends that we have 
"essentially ... incorrectly held that workers at a university (that receives a relatively tiny amount of 
funding from government agencies) are legally placed in a privileged position over private sector 
workers (who do not receive government funding) - even when the private sector worker has more 
impact tha[n] Dr. Dhanasar." 
The Petitioner's argument above misstates our findings relating to the\second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. This prorig shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the petitioner. Id. at 890. To 
determine whether a petitioner "is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider 
factors including, but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of 
success in related or similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards 
achieving the proposed endeavor;" as well as "the interest of potential customers, users, ·investors, or 
other relevant entities or individuals." Id. at 890. As Dhanasar's second prong focuses on the 
individual, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained or established how an employer's yearly 
revenue or a university's total government funded research budget are relevant to our determination 
under that prong. 
·, 
With respect to the petitioner in Dhanasar, the "consistent government funding" of his specific 
research projects was a relevant consideration in determining that he was well positioned to advance 
his proposed endeavor. Id. at 893 . .In the present matter, unlike in Dhanasar, the record does not 
show the funding that . or any other organization has devoted 
to the Petitioner's research projects. That said, private or public sector interest in, or funding of, an 
individual's work are not the only factors that we consider in determining eligibility under prong two 
of the Dhanasar framework. For example, the petitioner in Dhanasar also presented "multiple 
graduate degrees in relevant fields" and "copies of his publications and other published materials 
that cite his work." Id. at 891-92. In addition, our precedent decision stated: 
[T]he petitioner has experience conducting research and developing computational 
models that support the mission of the United States Department of Defense ("DOD") 
to develop air superiority and protection capabilities of U.S. military forces, and that 
assist in the development of platforms for Earth observation and interplanetary .· 
exploration. The petitioner submitted detailed expert letters describing U.S. 
Government interest and investment in his research, and the record includes 
documentation that the petitioner played a significant role in projects fonded by 
grants from the National Aeronautics -and Space Administration ("NASA") and the 
. 4 Dr. Dhanasar was the petitioner in our precedent decision. 
5 The Petitioner's motio·n includes information from · listing its direct and indirect 
federal fonding amounts. In addition, he offers information from Wikipedia indicating that generated 
$13.949 billion in revenue in 2017. · 
3 
. D 
Matter of O-A-A-
· Air Force Research Laboratories ("AFRL") within DOD. Thus, the significance of 
the petitioner's research in his field is corroborated by evidence of peer and 
government interest in his research, as well as by consistent government funding of 
the petitioner's research projects. 
Id. at 892-893. 
The Petitioner contends that as a "private sector worker," he "has more impact" and a stronger citation 
record than Dr. Dhanasar. As noted in our prior decision, while we listed Dr. Dhanasar's 
"publications and other published materials that cite his work" among the documents he presented, 
our determination that he was well positioned under the second prong was not based on his citation 
record. Rather, in our precedent decision we found "[t]he petitioner's education, experience, and 
expertise in his field, the significance of his role in research projects, as well as the sustained interest 
of and funding from government entities such as NASA and AFRL, position him well to continue to 
advance his proposed endeavor of hypersonic technology research." Id. at 893. We reiterate that we 
look to a variety of factors in determining whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance his 
proposed endeavor and citations are merely one factor among many that may contribute to such a 
finding. 6 
Our previous decision acknowledged that the record included several letters of recommendation, but 
found that they did not "offer sufficient detail regarding his specific research accomplishments" to 
demonstrate that they render him well positioned to advance his proposed research. On motion, the 
Petitioner asserts that our decision did not acknowledge a letter of support from a 
staff scientist in the Earth Sciences Division at and 
a visiting professor at 7 However, our appellate decision did address 
letter. For example, we stated: 
indicates that the Petitioner "developed a novel• method of reducing 
aquiver pressurization while also increasing the storage efficiency of the injected 
CO2." While contends that he and other members of the research 
community found the Petitioner's work "to be of significant value," he does not offer 
specific examples of how the Petitioner's simulation method has generated positive 
interest among relevant parties, has been implemented in the oil and gas industry, or 
otherwise reflects a record of success in his area of research. 
In addition to the letter from at 
. letter he previously submitted from 
the Petitioner asks that we specifically consider the 
a senior research scientist at 
6 With regard to the Petitioner's citation evidence, our prior decision noted that he did not offer: comparative statistics 
indicating how often· other petroleum engineering researchers are cited, nor did he otherwise demonstrate that his 
published and presented research constitutes a record of success or a level of interest in his work from relevant parties 
sufficient to meet this prong. · · · 
7 . indicated that the Petitioner "was a student of mine during my time at 
4 
.
Matter of O-A-A-
asserted that the Petitioner presented a paper at the 2010 
conference paper that "demonstrated how to use aquifer management strategies to reduce aquifer 
pressure and increase CO2 storage efficiency." also mentions an article that the 
Petitioner authored entitled '' 
published in the International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control in 2016. He 
contends that "[t]he impact of the Petitioner's work will be reflected on both the theoretical level and 
in practical applications," but does not provide any specific examples of such impact or of how the 
Petitioner's research record otherwise renders him well positioned to advance h.is proposed 
endeavor. 
The Petitioner also requests that we consider the letter he initially submitted from 
a member of the of Engineering, and professor and 
Endowed Chair of Engineering at 8 She discusses the 
Petitioner's involvement in their research project aimed at finding "aquifer management strategies 
that increase the storage efficiency of carbon sequestration in deep saline aquifer and alleviate 
aquifer pressurization." asserts that the Petitioner "was a key member of t
1
he 
project, and critical to its successful completion." She further states that he "has published two 
publications in peer-reviewed journals," but the record does not include sufficient evid~nce that this 
work constitutes a record of success or otherwise shows that he is well positioned to advance his 
proposed research. · 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts that we erred in failing to consider his wife, daughter, and the country. 
conditions in Nigeria. These issues, however, are not relevant to determining whether the Petitioner 
satisfies the requirements set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework, and thus that a national 
interest waiver is warranted. 
The Petitioner has riot met the requirements for a motion to reconsider as he has not demonstrated that 
we erred in our previous analysis based on the record before us on appeal. Further, the motion to 
reconsider do~s not establish that our previous findings were based on an incorrect application of the 
· law, regulation, or USCIS policy. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
\ 
In support of the motion to reopen, the Petitioner presents a paper he prepared for the July 2018 
, entitled 
' He also provides an abstract that he submitted for oral or poster 
presentation at the November 2017 
works.hop. This evidence post-dates the filing of the petition and therefore does not show 
\ his eligibilityunder the second prong of the Dhanasar framework at the time of filing . See 8 C.F:R. 
8 previously served as a professor of petroleum engineering at from 2004 
until 2014 and was the Petition.er's research advisor. The Petitioner's motion includes documentation indicating that she 
is a mem~er of the of Engineering. 
.
Matter C!f O-A-A-
§ 103 .2(b )( 1 ). Regardless, the record does not document that his paper and abstract were actually 
presented at the aforementioned conference and workshop, nor does the evidence otherwise show 
that his research findings render him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner also submits updated information from OnePetro.org relating to downloads and 
pricing for two papers he authored: one published in Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal (20_13) 
and one presented at a conference (2010). We previously explained 
in our appellate decision that whilt; these papers have been downloaded hundreds of times, the 
Petitioner has not presented evidence illustrating the significance of this number, or establishing that 
the research has been implemented, utilized, or applauded by those viewing it. These downloads of 
the Petitioner's two articles corroborate that he has disseminated his findings, but they are not sufficient 
to demonstrate that his work has been influential among petroleum engineering researchers, has 
served as an impetus for progress or generated positive discourse in the field, or otherwise represents 
a record of success or progress rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed research. 
In addition, the Petitioner provides a_ July 2018 article from the Gatestone Institute stating that more 
than 6,000 Christians have been killed in the Petitioner's native country of Nigeria since January 
2018, information from the American Society for Engineerinis Education showing that ·4.4% of 
doctoral degrees are awarded to black or African American students, and documentation relating to 
his spouse's career success in the United States. This information and evidence, however, does not 
relate to the Petitioner's eligibility under the second prong of the Dhanasar anitlytical framework. 
As the Petitioner has not established that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, he 
has not met the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner's motion does not show that our previous decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy and does not include new information or evidence. that overcomes the 
grounds underlying our previous decision. As th~' Petitioner has not met the second prong set forth in 
the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise 
· merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter of O-A-A-, ID# 1974191 (AAO Jan. 31 ; 2019) 
6