dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Petroleum Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 22, 2024 In Re: 33401378 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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 the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. The matter is now before 
us on appeal pursuant to 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 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. 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. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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: 
• 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional but did not 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. For the reasons set 
forth below, we agree that the Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility under the Dhanasar framework 
and will dismiss the appeal. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner intended to work as a senior drilling engineer/petroleum engineer 
in the United States, asserting that he would provide "highly specialized services to oil and gas 
companies operating in the United States." According to the Petitioner's professional plan, he 
intended to provide "operation and management services to companies supporting drilling operations 
within the [ o ]il, [ d]rilling and [g]as [ e ]xtraction industry," and planned to specialize in wellbore 
stability analysis; drilling optimization and efficiency; well control and blowout prevention; drilling 
data analysis and interpretation; and performance evaluation and wellbore remediation. The Petitioner 
also planned to advise companies on "the latest technological advancements in directional drilling to 
improve and optimize gas and oil drilling operations in the United States [and] prevent spills." 
Ultimately, the Petitioner asserted that by prioritizing efficiency and embracing innovation, he would 
be able to contribute to a sustainable energy future. Additionally, he also proposed to conduct lectures, 
seminars, and workshops to teach his colleagues, peers, and other engineers in the industry on drilling 
best practices and directional drilling techniques. In support of his endeavor, the Petitioner provided 
two personal statements, a professional plan, an expert opinion letter, numerous letters of 
recommendation, and various articles and reports discussing the size, economic value, and importance 
of oil and gas industry. 
Upon review of the record, the Director denied the petition, concluding, that the Petitioner did not 
establish either the substantial merit or national importance of his endeavor. Specifically, as it pertains 
to the national importance of his endeavor, the Director determined that the petitioner did not provide 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
evidence to establish his endeavor would result in the claimed broader impact to the oil and gas 
industry. And, while acknowledging the evidence in the record pertaining to the importance of the 
industry as well as the professional shortage in the industry, the Director determined that this evidence 
did not establish that the Petitioner's work stands to impact the field at a level commensurate with 
national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director's decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or policy and was arbitrary and capricious. In particular, the Petitioner claims the Director did not 
properly consider the arguments and evidence on record. Additionally, he points to the Director's 
single misstatement regarding the Petitioner's profession and field, asserting that it makes "it difficult 
... to determine whether the previous analysis and conclusions [in the Director's decision] referred to 
his petition." Yet, beyond this clear misstatement, the Director's decision does discuss the Petitioner's 
endeavor with specificity, including his claims regarding its national importance and impact to the oil, 
gas and energy fields. And, while we acknowledge the Director's error, because the record shows the 
Director addressed the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor-not only in their decision, but also in 
their request for evidence (RFE)-we conclude that this error was not material to their decision, and 
is, at most, harmless. See generally Matter ofO-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. at, 350 n.5 ( citing Japarkulova v. 
Holder, 615 F.3d 696, 701 (6th Cir. 2010) (stating that error is harmless where there is no "reason to 
believe that ... remand might lead to a different result" (citation omitted))). Moreover, on appeal the 
Petitioner does not establish that the evidence in the record shows that his specific endeavor is of 
national importance. It is not enough to generally assert errors in a decision. The Petitioner must also 
establish that they were prejudiced by any claimed errors. Errors can be overlooked when they had 
no bearing on the substance of an agency's decision. See e.g., Aguilar v. Garland, 60 F.4th 401, 407 
(8th Cir. 2023) (citing Prohibition Juice Co. v. United States Food & Drug Admin., 45 F.4th 8, 24 
(D.C. Cir. 2022)). 
Turning to our review of the record, we disagree with the Director's conclusion regarding the 
substantial merit of the Petitioner's endeavor and withdraw this determination. The record contains 
sufficient documentation, including industry reports discussing the importance of the oil and gas 
industry, to establish the substantial merit of the Petitioner's endeavor. As such, we conclude that the 
record supports the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor. However, while the Petitioner has 
established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not demonstrate its 
national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner continues to rely on the importance of the oil and gas field, but this misapplies 
the Dhanasar framework. When determining national importance, the relevant question is not the 
importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We 
therefore "look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting that "[a]n undertaking may 
have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a 
particular field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890 
Here, while the Petitioner claims on appeal that he will "play a pivotal role in boosting domestic 
production, which hinges on expanding drilling operations," he has not provided support for this broad 
3 
assertion. The Petitioner has not shown, for example, how his work would lead to national or global 
implications to the field, or otherwise impact domestic production beyond the contributions of a single 
professional in his field. And while he claims he has "knowledge and expertise to implement improved 
drilling techniques," he has not identified with specificity what techniques he would introduce or how 
they would be an improvement to those already widely used in the field. Without this information, 
we are unable to ascertain whether these techniques could be considered comparable to "improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances" contemplated in Dhanasar. Generalized conclusory 
statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. 
v. US. Att'yGen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory 
assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
And, while we recognize that, in addition to improving the efficiency of drilling projects for his 
prospective employer(s) or customers, the Petitioner intended to provide lectures and seminars to train 
others in the field, he has not explained how these seminars, even if realized, would result in broader 
implications to his field. Just like the services he may offer to his direct employers, the benefits derived 
from his trainings are akin to how the benefit of someone's teaching is generally only directly 
beneficial to the students being taught and not wider population. In Dhanasar we discussed how 
teaching would not necessarily impact the field more broadly in a manner which rises to national 
importance. Dhanasar at 893. 
The Petitioner also contends that his endeavor is aligned with government initiatives to attract STEM 
talent. However, with respect to the first prong, as in all cases, the evidence must demonstrate that a 
STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. 2 While several proposed 
endeavors aimed at advancing STEM technologies and processes may have substantial merit, such 
activities, by themselves, generally are not indicative of an impact in the field of STEM more broadly. 
Here, as stated, the record does not establish the Petitioner's endeavor will result in broad implications 
to his field rather than providing his limited services working in a STEM profession. 
Similarly, the testimonial evidence in the record, including the expert opinion letter and the letters of 
recommendation, provide little probative value in establishing the national importance of the 
Petitioner's endeavor. For instance, while Dr. D-P- discusses the Petitioner's "extensive experience," 
and benefits he can bring to his prospective employer(s), as well as the importance of the field 
generally, they do not establish that the Petitioner's individual work will result in broader implications 
to his field. Moreover, the expert opinion letter and letters of recommendation primarily discuss the 
Petitioner's expertise and professional background. We recognize that the Petitioner has had a 
successful career, but a petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under 
Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign 
national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as 
expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS 
is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a noncitizen's eligibility. The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. 
2 See generally 5 USCIS Policy Manual D.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
4 
Id., see also Matter ofD-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445,460 n.13 (BIA 2011) (discussing the varying weight 
that may be given expert testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value) . 
Here, much of the content of the expert opinion letter and recommendation letters lack relevance with 
respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
The record also does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's intended work in the oil and gas industry 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic 
impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work (as opposed to the general oil and gas 
industry), the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from 
the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated 
by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as 
a matter of discretion. Because the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that 
"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 alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5