dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Petroleum Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: WL. 6, 2023 In Re: 27640584 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a petroleum drilling 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. We dismissed the subsequent appeal, determining that the Petitioner had not 
sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of 
the analytical framework described in the precedent decision Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 
(AAO 2016). We also concluded in our appellate decision that he had met the requirements under 
Dhanasar 's second prong, but since he had not established his eligibility under the first Dhanasar 
prong, further analysis of his eligibility under Dhanasar 's third prong would serve no meaningful 
purpose. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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) . 
The matter is now before us again on motions to reconsider and reopen our most recent decision. On 
motion, the Petitioner asserts that we erred in dismissing his appeal. He submits a brief and additional 
evidence. 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 motions . 
I. MOTION TO RECONSIDER 
A motion to reconsider 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 proceeding at 
the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
prior decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii) . Here, the prior decision is our February 2023 decision, 
dismissing the Petitioner's appeal. For the sake of brevity, we incorporate our previous analysis of the 
record. 1 We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the 
requested benefit. 
On motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision. In support of the motion, the 
Petitioner relies on Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), which set forth a three­
pronged test in which a petitioner seeking a national interest waiver must provide details about the 
individual's proposed endeavor in the United States, and demonstrate 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. 
On motion, the Petitioner restates many of the same claims and references the same evidence that we 
addressed in our prior appellate decision. Importantly, the Petitioner's brief is substantially like the 
brief submitted in support of his appeal. He presents the same arguments regarding his own 
interpretations of how evidence should be evaluated to establish the national importance of his 
prospective endeavor under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
For instance, the arguments presented by the Petitioner on appeal largely focused on the level of his 
expertise and his past accomplishments, and the economic, environmental, and national security 
implications of his work in the oil and gas industry. On motion, the Petitioner restates the first part of 
this argument contending that his "extensive training and experience in casing and cementing, and 
emergency preparedness training directly enhances [oil] well control and the prevention of blowouts 
and spills." The Petitioner asserts "this skill directly impacts this risk and threat to the security of the 
energy critical infrastructure and protects this vital national resource, supra, as being of national 
importance, and demonstrates an impact beyond his employer to issues of critical national 
importance." The Petitioner put forth the same or similar arguments in pages 12-15 of his appellate 
brief 
In our appellate decision, we agreed with the Director's conclusions that considerations of the 
Petitioner's education, experience and record of success are specifically reserved for the second prong 
of the Dhanasar analysis, whereas the focus in the first prong is the potential prospective benefit of 
the specific endeavor. We noted that while a certain level of expertise may allow an individual to 
engage in an endeavor with potentially wider implications, that expertise itself is not a factor in the 
national importance of the endeavor. 
In regard to the second part of his arguments, on motion the Petitioner discusses the positive impacts 
of the oil and gas industry on the U.S. economy and how the oil drilling occupation "is a [n]ationally 
[c]ritical [i]portant [±Junction with broad implications to the U.S." The Petitioner put forth the same 
or similar arguments in pages 6-9 of his appellate brief We observed in our appellate decision that 
Dhanasar states that it is the specific endeavor that is the focus of the first prong, not the individual's 
field or occupation. Id. at 884. We acknowledged that the record included substantial evidence 
regarding the importance of the oil and gas industry, but that it did not establish that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor to continue working for his current employer as a drilling engineer specializing in 
1 Our appellate decision in this matter was ID# 19913157 (AAO FEB. 3, 2023). 
2 
casing and cementing would have those same implications. We ultimately concluded that because the 
Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor, he does not meet the 
first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
Because we have already discussed those claims and evidence, we need not address them again here. 
The Petitioner's remaining contentions in the motion to reconsider merely reargue facts and issues we 
have already considered in our previous decision. See e.g., Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 
(BIA 2006) ( explaining that "a motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in 
essence, the same brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the 
prior Board decision"). We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying 
petition remains denied. 
The purpose of a motion to reconsider is to show error in the most recent prior decision. The 
Petitioner's motion filing does not meet this standard. We addressed the Petitioner's prior arguments 
in our earlier decision, and the Petitioner's repetition of the same arguments does not show proper 
cause for reconsideration. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an 
incorrect application oflaw or policy at the time we issued our decision in February 2023. Therefore, 
we will dismiss the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
II. MOTION TO REOPEN 
A motion to reopen 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 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner submission includes an updated statement from the Petitioner, and additional 
reports, articles, and government directives about the oil and gas industry or the oil drilling engineer 
occupation. The Petitioner asserts that this evidence supports new facts sufficient to establish the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor, which entails his continuing employment as an oil 
drilling engineer. 
We have reviewed and considered collectively the facts put forth by the Petitioner in support of his 
motion to reopen but conclude that they do not meet the filing standards for such a motion. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). For instance, the Petitioner in his updated statement emphasizes his advanced expertise 
as an oil drilling engineer, and provides farther detail about the duties that he performs for his employer 
in this occupation, noting, among other things: 
My endeavor's primary objective is to safely drill to extract our national resources from 
deep under the surface of the earth to provide the energy that powers the U.S., but this 
also includes responsibilities for managing productivity, efficiency, cost containment, 
and most importantly the safety of the well, the workers, and the environment. 
3 
In our prior decision, we observed that the record already included evidence regarding the Petitioner's 
area of expertise, the casing and cementing process in off-shore well drilling, and its importance to the 
safe operation of oil rigs. Without more, the Petitioner's further explanations about various aspects of 
his work does not substantiate his assertions regarding the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. 
Similarly, throughout this proceeding, the Petitioner has submitted evidence that provides information 
to support his previously offered assertions that the oil and gas industry generally and the oil drilling 
occupation specifically are of national importance. For instance, in the appeal brief: the Petitioner 
noted: 
The record includes numerous reports and U.S. government agency publications that 
state the U.S. oil and gas industry, and oil and gas production is vital to the nation, and 
further that U.S. domestic production benefits the U.S., its national security, and global 
influence, the national economy, [and is] vital to sustaining our strategic interests ... 
As discussed in the motion to reconsider, we previously acknowledged the submission of such 
evidence in our decision dismissing the appeal, noting that the record includes substantial evidence 
regarding the national importance of the oil and gas industry, but this evidence does not establish that 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, which entails work as a drilling engineer specializing in casing 
and cementing, would have those same implications. We conclude the Petitioner's submission of 
additional, cumulative evidence regarding the overall importance of the oil and gas industry does not 
constitute new evidence supporting new facts that are material to the issues raised on motion which 
have not been previously submitted in the proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Here, the Petitioner 
has not established new facts on motion sufficient to overcome our previous decision. See Matter of 
Coelho, Dec. at 464. Accordingly, we will dismiss his motion to reopen. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the 
decision. Further, the evidence provided in support of the motion to reopen does not overcome the 
grounds in our previous decision. We affirm our previous determination that the Petitioner has not 
established his eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, and he is thus not eligible 
for and does not merit a national interest waiver. While he also asserts on motion that he meets the 
third Dhanasar prong, we will continue to reserve that issue. 2 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
2 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24. 25-26 (1976). 
4