dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Petroleum Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9442557 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : OCT . 16, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
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) . 
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 Petitioner's appeal and two subsequent motions. The matter is 
now before us on a third motion to reopen. 
In these 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. Upon review, 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 previous decision, we determined 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. 
In discussing the evidence offered in support of the second motion, our previous decision stated that 
the Petitioner's published and presented work, workshop participation, and invitations requesting his 
manuscripts and editorial services all post-dated the filing of the petition. In addition, we explained 
that while the downloads of the Petitioner's articles corroborate that he has disseminated his findings , 
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, we determined that the Petitioner's self-compiled list of citations 
lacked probative value and did not demonstrate citations to his work by others in the field. We further 
indicated that he had not provided comparative statistics indicating how often other petroleum 
engineering researchers are cited, nor 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. Finally, we concluded that while the White House Fact Sheet and 
the article from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) both helped show the substantial merit and 
national importance of the Petitioner's proposed work under Dhanasar's first prong, they did not relate 
to whether he is well positioned to advance his proposed research. 
With the present motion, the Petitioner does not offer new facts or evidence relevant to our 
aforementioned findings. Instead, the Petitioner submits a November 2012,...1 ................. ......,. 
I !offering him "the position of Reservoir Engineer, located in TX." He also 
presents a December 2019 letter verifying his employment with---------~ from 
November 2012 until August 2015. Additionally, the Petitioner offers three letters of support from 
his former coworkers atl I discussing his work experience and projects at the 
company . 1 His motion also includes certificates indicating that he has completed courses in "CO2 
sequestration with GEM," "Schlumberger Information Solutions - Petrel Introduction," "Chemical 
EOR using STARS & CMOST," "Reservoir Geomechanics," and "MOOC Oil and Gas - From 
Exploration to Distribution." 2 Furthermore, as documentation that his work has generated interest and 
positive discourse in the field, the Petitioner presents articles discussing carbon capture, the production 
of water from saline aquifers through carbon dioxide capture and storage operations, pre-injection 
brine production in CO2 storage reservoirs, brine management for geologic carbon sequestration, the 
enhancement of CO2 storage capacity with brine production, and the DOE's selection of five projects 
that will study the feasibility of using brine from CO2 storage sites to produce fresh water. 3 
While the Petitioner has offered new evidence with the present motion, this documentation does not 
relate to our discussion of the evidence for the prior motion. The Petitioner's motion does not include 
new information or evidence that overcomes the grounds underlying our previous decision and that 
renders him eligible under the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
1 The letters from the Petitioner's coworkers at Weatherford International do not provide specific examples of how his 
work has affected the oil and gas industry, has served as an impetus for progress or generated positive discourse in his field, 
or otherwise represents a record of success or progress rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed carbon 
sequestration research . 
2 While these certificates indicate that the Petitioner has received training in his specialty, the record does not show that 
this training renders him well positioned to advance his proposed research endeavor. We look to a variety of factors in 
determining whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, and education is merely one factor 
among many that may contribute to such a finding. 
3 These articles do not identify the Petitioner or include a discussion of the significance of his work. Accordingly , they do 
not show that his work has generated interest or positive discourse in his field at a level that renders him well positioned 
to advance his proposed research. 
2 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our previous decision that would warrant 
reopening of the proceedings, we have no basis for reopening of our decision, and his underlying 
petition remains denied. He has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
3