dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Petroleum Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19913157 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 3, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a petroleum drilling engineer, 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 while the Petitioner 
established his eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, the record did 
not establish that he qualified for and otherwise merited a national interest waiver. 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 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 . Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 of 
Dhanasar, 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 1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
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) . 
• 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 
The Petitioner is a petroleum drilling engineer who proposes to continue to work in the United States 
in this field. He holds the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in petroleum engineering and has 
worked for his current employer and its affiliates for more than 15 years. The Director determined 
that he is eligible for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree, and we agree. The issue on appeal is whether he is eligible, and otherwise merits, a waiver of 
that classification's job offer requirement. We conclude that he is not. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
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. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
In his decision, the Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was of substantial 
merit, but did not explain this conclusion. In addition to materials regarding the general importance 
of the oil and gas industry to the United States, the record also includes evidence specifically 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 these oil rigs. Dr.I I states in his reference 
letter that "an improper casing and cementing operation in a well can jeopardize the economical 
production of natural resources, and possibly impose a huge environmental impact, as recently 
happened in the Gulf of Mexico with the blowout of the Macondo well." This evidence establishes 
the substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
With regard to the national importance of the proposed endeavor, the Director noted that the reference 
letters submitted on the Petitioner's behalf praised his contributions to multiple drilling projects 
conducted by his employer, but that this evidence was more relevant to whether he is well positioned 
to advance his proposed endeavor under the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. Further, while 
acknowledging the importance of the Petitioner's work in casing and cementing operations for off­
shore drilling, he noted that the benefits of this work would be limited to his employer and would not 
impact the field more broadly. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred when determining that his proposed endeavor 
was not of national importance because the Petitioner failed to establish that his continued employment 
with his current employer "stands to sufficiently extend beyond [the employer] or any future 
employers to impact the oil and gas industry or field more broadly." He argues that because this 
language does not appear verbatim in the Dhanasar decision, it is "baseless terminology." But we 
disagree that the language the Director used was not in keeping with the analytic framework laid out 
in Dhanasar. That framework considers the "broader implications" of an individual's proposed 
2 
endeavor, which could mean "national or even global implications within a field" or an endeavor of 
smaller geographic scope which nevertheless has "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has 
other substantial positive economic effects." It is therefore relevant when conducting an analysis 
under Dhanasar's first prong to consider whether the implications of an employee's work will extend 
beyond their employer to the field overall. 
The Petitioner also argues that the Director should have applied "a similar analysis of the petitioner's 
first proposed endeavor in Dhanasar" to his own proposed endeavor. However, the separate 
discussion of the two aspects of the endeavor proposed by Dr. Dhanasar in our precedent decision did 
not create two separate analyses to determine national importance as the Petitioner suggests. Rather, 
the Dhanasar decision applies the analysis it introduced to those separate aspects and explains why 
one is of national interest and the other is not. We also disagree with the Petitioner's contention that 
the Director erred in drawing a comparison between his proposed endeavor of continued employment 
with his current employer to that of a classroom teacher as discussed in our precedent decision, since 
both circumstances may limit the reach of the implications of their respective endeavors. 
The remaining arguments presented by the Petitioner focus 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. As for the first point, the Director stressed in his decision that considerations 
of his 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 agree. 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 regards to the second argument, 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. The record includes substantial 
evidence regarding the importance of the oil and gas industry, but does not establish that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor to continue working for his current employer as a drilling engineer 
specializing in casing and cementing would have those same implications. We conclude 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. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether 
they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not 
limited to: their 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; and the 
interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Id. at 890. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has established that he is well positioned to advance his 
proposed endeavor. 
3 
III. CONCLUSION 
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 asserts on appeal 
that he meets the third Dhanasar prong, we will reserve that issue. 2 The appeal will be dismissed for 
the reasons state above. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
4