dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Petroleum Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL. 17, 2023 In Re: 23069389 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a petroleum engineer, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification . Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2) , 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner had not 
established a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo . Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the 
national interest. " Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of 
discretion 1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows: 
• 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. 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature) . 
II. ANALYSIS 
As it relates to the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner's initial 
cover letter indicated: 
[The Petitioner] intends to advance his career as a Petroleum Engineer, designing and 
developing methods for extracting oil and gas from oil and gas fields. [The Petitioner] 
has extensive experience working with renowned companies in the oil field services 
industry .... 
Based upon his experience in the oil and gas sector, [the Petitioner] will be able to utilize 
his solid experience gained in more than 10 years of working on directional drilling, 
petroleum engineering, mechanical maintenance and training other field engineers .... 
. . . [The Petitioner's] endeavor is of national importance because the U.S. oil and gas 
sectors are growing. This creates a demand for exceptional petroleum engineers, such as 
[the Petitioner] who are skilled at evaluating the economic viability of potential drilling 
sites and estimate the production capabilities of oil and gas wells. His in-depth technical 
knowledge in petroleum geology, directional drilling, reservoir and well engineering, 
petroleum production engineering and use of industry specific equipment and technology 
makes him an asset to the U.S. 
Further, the Petitioner's "Professional Plan & Statement" reflected: 
I intend to continue using my expertise and knowledge in the oil and gas sector by working 
as a Petroleum Engineer in the United States .... 
I will be able to utilize my solid experience gained in more than 10 years of working with 
renowned companies where I focused on directional drilling, petroleum engineering, 
mechanical maintenance and training other field engineers .... 
My career plan is to work with American companies to provide expert advice, services 
and leadership regarding drilling and petroleum engineering .... 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE the Petitioner submitted a business plan for 
!indicating he "relies on developing.__ ______ _, an Engineering Service firm 
2 
I 
that provides Oil & Gas drilling engineering services, headquartered in Texas, with operations in New 
Mexico and Louisiana." 
The Director determined the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor's substantial merit but not 
its national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner stresses "[h]is experience will certainly be an asset 
in assisting U.S. companies to meet consumers' demands for technologically responsive and more 
specialized products." As indicated, the Petitioner initially claimed he intended to "work with 
American companies." However, in response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner asserted he intended 
to open and operate his own company, I I The Petitioner must establish all eligibility 
requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time filing and continuing through 
adjudication. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). Further, a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the 
petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 
1988). That decision further provides, citing Matter ofBardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981 ), that 
USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. 
Accordingly, we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of opening and 
operating his own business. 2 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Although he provided 
"Industry Reports and Articles" relating to a wide range of topics, such as oil and gas extraction, 
petroleum engineers, and immigration and the economy, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national 
importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of providing his particular petroleum engineering 
services to companies rather than the importance of the occupation or the industry or field. In 
Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and 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. We note here the Petitioner also contends the need for petroleum engineers in the United 
States. However, the alleged shortage of an occupation does not render his proposed endeavor 
nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. In fact, such shortages of qualified workers are 
directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
In addition, the Petitioner emphasizes his experience, skills, and knowledge. The Petitioner's 
experience and abilities in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which 
"shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is 
whether the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's 
first prong. 
Moreover, to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. The 
Petitioner did not offer specific information and evidence to corroborate his assertions that the 
2 In fact, the Petitioner's business plan, tax documentation, and business formation evidence reflect events occurring after 
the filing of the initial petition. 
3 
prospective impact of working as a petroleum engineering for unidentified employers rises to the level 
of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to 
the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 
893. Here, the record does not show through supporting documentation how his specific employment 
services stand to sufficiently extend beyond his prospective employers, to impact the industry or the 
U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not show his initial proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Without 
evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, 
the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from his 
petroleum engineering position would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 3 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
he has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of 
discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
4