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: NOV. 14, 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 national's proposed 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign national 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 of 
Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) . 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Petitioner's Form I-140, Immigrant Petitioner 
Alien Worker . We dismissed the Petitioner 's appeal and denied his subsequent motion. 1 The matter 
is now before us on motion to reopen. For the reasons discussed below , we will dismiss the motion. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In our prior decisions, we found that the Petitioner had not sufficiently demonstrated that he is well 
positioned to advance his proposed endeavor and therefore he did not meet the second prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. 
With the motion , the Petitioner submits an article he published in International Journal of Greenhouse 
Gas Control (2016) , a conference paper he presented at the Unconventional Resources Technology 
Conference (UR TC) (2018), and documentation showing he participated in a "Shale Development 
1 See Matter of O-A-A-, ID# 1285616 (AAO July 10, 2018) and Matter of O-A-A-, ID# 1974191 (AAO Jan. 31 , 2019) . 
Matter of O-A-A-
Optimization Workshop" (2018) and a "Geosciences Technology Workshop" (2019). He also presents 
an invitation he received to take part in an American Association of Petroleum Geologists panel 
discussion (2019), his "manuscript submission" for the 2019 URTC, and various emails requesting his 
editorial services (2018). In addition, the Petitioner offers emails requesting that he provide abstracts 
for conferences (201 7 and 2018), inviting him to contribute unpublished research papers to American 
Journal of Computation, Communication and Control (2018), and thanking him for reviewing a 
manuscript for Journal of Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources (2016). The aforementioned 
evidence post-dates the filing of the petition and therefore does not demonstrate the Petitioner's 
eligibility under the second prong of the Dhanasar framework at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). Regardless, this evidence does not show that his published and presented work and 
peer review activities render him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
With respect to the conference paper he presented at the 2018 UR TC, the Petitioner notes that this 
paper "has been downloaded 211 times." We previously explained in our earlier decisions that while 
the Petitioner has offered documentation indicating that his papers have been downloaded hundreds 
of times, he 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 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. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provides a self-compiled citation index for five of his research papers, but 
he did not offer supporting evidence to corroborate his assertions. 2 This self-compiled information 
lacks probative value and does not demonstrate citations to his work by others in the field. Moreover, 
the record does not include comparative statistics indicating how often other petroleum engineering 
researchers are cited, nor has the Petitioner otherwise demonstrated 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 Dhanasar's second prong. 
The Petitioner also submits an article prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Fossil 
Energy, entitled "Producing Usable Water from CO2 Storage Sites" and a White House Fact Sheet, 
entitled "President Donald J. Trump Is Accelerating America's Leadership in Artificial Intelligence." 
While this documentation helps show the substantial merit and national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed work under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, it does not relate to the whether he 
is well positioned to advance his proposed research. 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 
precedent decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner's motion does not include new information or evidence that overcomes the grounds 
underlying our previous decision. As the Petitioner has not met the second prong set forth in the 
2 For example, he did not present copies of the articles that cited to his work or other supporting evidence in the form of 
citation results from databases or search engines (such as Scopus, Web of Science, or Google Scholar). 
2 
Matter of O-A-A-
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. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's 
burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799,806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofO-A-A-, ID# 5302059 (AAO Nov. 14, 2019) 
3