dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Petroleum Engineering

(b)(6)
DATE: DEC 0 5 2014 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S.DepartmentofHomeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
· INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:/Jwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, tiling location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
Jt�';!�;trative Appeals Office 
www .uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: . The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. We will dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification under section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U. S. C. § 1153(b )(2), as an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, the arts, or business, and 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The petitioner is a petroleum engineer. At 
the time the petitioner filed the petition, he worked for � (described as the successor in 
interest of _ ), and stated his intention to continue working for that 
employer. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (U SCIS) records show that he left that employer 
during the first half of 2013, and has since begun working for 
_ 
The 
petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, 
is in the national interest of the United States. The director found that the petitioner qualifies for 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that the petitioner has not 
established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the 
United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a legal brief. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
Exceptional Ability.-
(A) In General. -Visas shall be made available .. . to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of Job Offer-
(i) ... the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in 
the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer 
in the United States. 
The director found that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. (An additional finding of exceptional ability would be moot.) The sole issue in contention is 
whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus a labor 
certification, is in the national interest. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, 
Congress did not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest by 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise .. .. " S. Rep. No. 55, lOl st Cong. , 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 
101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991 ), 
states: 
The Service [now USCIS] believes it appropriate to leave the application of this test 
as flexible as possible, although clearly an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] 
standard must make a showing significantly above that necessary to prove the 
"prospective national benefit" [required of aliens seeking to qualify as "exceptional."] 
The burden will rest with the alien to establish that exemption from, or waiver of, the 
job offer will be in the national interest. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. 
In reNew York State Dep't of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) 
(NYSDOT), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First, a petitioner must establish that the alien seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. !d. at 217. Next, a petitioner must establish that the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope. !d. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve 
the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U. S. worker having the 
same minimu m qualifications. !d. at 217-18. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must establish 
that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. !d. at 219. The 
petitioner's assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The term "prospective" is included here to require future 
contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no demonstrable prior 
achievements, and whose benefitto the national interest would thus be entirely speculative. !d. 
The regulation at 8 C. F. R. § 204. 5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encounter ed " in a given area of endeavor. By statute, aliens of 
exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certification requirement; they are not 
exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given alien seeks classification as 
an alien of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, that 
alien cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on November 27, 2012. 
An accompanying statement indicated that the petitioner: 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
is employed as a Petroleum Engineer for where he is in the 
process of discovering, identifying, and evaluating "ne w'' shale plays that would 
enable the US private producers to reduce the cost of extraction from geological 
formations that would significantly increase the availability of fossil fuels and US's 
energy independence. 
The introductory statement provided background information about shale gas production, and 
indicated that "the U. S. oil and gas industry is experiencing a ... shortage of experienced technical 
professionals for upstream exploration and production. This shortage threatens the U.S . 's ability to 
meet growing energy demands." The labor certification process is the means by which the 
Department of Labor confirms that qualified United States workers are not available for a given job 
opening. A shortage of such workers, therefore, is not grounds for waiving the job offer 
requirement. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218. USCIS grants national interest waivers on a case 
by case basis, and does not establish blanket waivers for entire fields of specialization. /d. at 217. 
The introductory statement stated: 
[The petitioner] is a new kind of Petroleum Engineer for the new future of the U. S. oil 
and gas industry, young and skilled in the areas most needed .... 
[The petitioner's] work is critical because: 
1. [The petitioner] is an expert in [the] use [of] current industry analytical 
technologies needed to locate, analyze, assess and access previously bypassed 
reserves in shale plays; 
2. [The petitioner] has a proven and continuing track record of research and 
technology applications including a publication in a nationally supported 
technical industry journal; 
3. [The petitioner] has a complete understanding of his subject area which is 
necessary to the US in our continued search for current and future sources of 
energy .... 
4. [The petitioner] is filling a[] timely and urgent need in the US labor market for 
skilled and trained petroleum engineers experienced in the areas of hard to access 
unconventional oil and gas exploration and production. 
[The petitioner's] work is therefore at the forefront of the U. S. 's search for current 
and future energy through the employment of analytical tools, new modeling 
technologies, exploration of datasets and finally the interpretation of that data. 
etitioner submitted a copy of 
petitioner as one 
2007. 
a report for which names the 
authors. Excerpts of the study appeared in the trade publication m 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
In terms of specific achievements, the introductory statement indicated that the petitioner performed 
"assessments ... on the l plays in various areas of the U.S . 
including Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Texas, " and that he participated in a study that "evaluated a 
small area known as the trend. " The petitioner cited various statistics regarding the 
_ 
play in order to demonstrate that "the economic impact of one shale play is 
significant. " 
The petitioner devoted several pages of his curriculum vitae to details of his work, such as: 
"Identifying new unconventional plays ( utilizing existing 
old well logs from producing fields " and "Identifying and discovering 'new' shale plays containing 
multi-billion dollar value proved reserves." 
The petitioner submitted five letters in support of the petition. 
� 
, whose graduate 
studies at the overlapped with those of the petitioner, is now a petroleum 
engineer with _ _ Mr. stated that the petitioner's 
graduate work involved "performing reservoir analysis to uncover bypassed oil and gas reserves in 
mature fields ... . His findings were published in noted industry publications and were cited by other 
authors and independent oil producers in Oklahoma utilized the findings of his research to increase 
oil and gas production from their oilfields. " The petitioner did not submit evidence to establish the 
extent to which his work led to increased production in mature Oklahoma oilfields. 
Mr. also stated: 
[The petitioner] has studied an area with no previous shale production, identified the 
presence of shale rocks, determined the properties of this shale rock and de-risked it 
by proving the existence of commercially producible oil and gas reserves which he 
reported to be about 6 billion barrels of oil equivalent. [The petitioner] has designed 
well completions for producing the oil and gas in this field .... [T]his region which 
was a marginal producer of oil and gas will become one of the huge oil and gas 
producing areas in the state of Texas due to the impact of [the petitioner's] work. 
studied alongside the petitioner at the and, later, the . 
Similar to Mr. Mr. stated that the petitioner "has been directly 
involved in the discovery of a new unconventional oil and gas play in Texas with about 6 billion 
barrels in undeveloped oil and gas reserves." Neither Mr. nor Mr. identified the 
site or specified the extent, if any, to which the above predictions have borne fruit. 
president of stated that the petitioner "has made 
significant scientific contributions to the field of reservoir engineering in unconventional reservoirs 
otherwise known as shale plays," but Mr. did not identify those contributions. He stated: 
[The petitioner 1 was recommended by a partner to perform reservoir engineering field 
studies on wells and leases. [The petitioner] displayed 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
great aptitude and knowledge in the area of reservoir description and management, as 
well as by-passed and additional reserVes determination. Specifically his unique 
experience with shale plays having worked on the ... prompted me to 
inquire [the petitioner's] opinion on our shale play .... I had [the petitioner] gather 
[a] significant amount of data ... and had him interpret the results of the data analysis 
to show the similarities of this play to other known producing shale plays in the 
Uni ted States ... . 
[The petitioner] was able to show that the huge oil and gas reserves in this world class 
resource play are ... ready for development and [are] attractive to my investor's 
interest. With his previous experience, [the petitioner] was also able to suggest the 
current state-of-the-art well completion and stimulation techniques .. . that will help 
to recover the most amounts of oil and gas during the development phase of the field . 
. . . Another similar producing shale play in South Texas - the 
generated over $25 billion in revenue[,] supported 47,000 full-time jobs in the area 
and provided $257 million in local government revenue in 2011. 
is projecting similar economic impact will be realized in its 
leasehold area .. .. [The petitioner] will continue to provide his invaluable expertise 
as our company drills and produces these wells. 
Mr. did not discuss the results of the petitioner's own past work to show that his projections of 
future benefit are consistent with known facts. 
chairman and chief executive officer of stated that 
the petitioner "has made several significant scientific contributions to the field of reservoir 
engineering in ... shale plays, " but he did not identify those contributions or explain their 
significance. Also lacking detail is his assertion that the petitioner "will soon have new inventions in 
Oil and Gas which will revolutionize the industry, and be used worldwid e." In terms of the 
petitioner's past work, Mr. stated that the petitioner "was an excellent source of third party 
confirmation, on the well logs of the wells his company and partners had drilled. " 
a director of claimed no expertise in the fossil fuel industry. Instead, 
she has "worked extensively in the financial industry, " and her current company "invests in oil 
exploration projects." Ms. stated: 
I have known about [the petitioner] since 2011 since his work with Mr. 
I was informed that the petitioner] performed a reservoir field study on the regional 
area where had been in operation. [The petitioner] was able to 
demonstrate that there were additional oil and gas reserves in this area that had not 
been developed and produced prior to that time. [The petitioner] indeed identified 
and quantified the volume of oil and gas contained in the in this 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
area. This kind of research requires outstanding abilities and talents [and] is only 
performed by those who are highly knowledgeable and skilled in evaluating shale 
plays since the shale rocks are not typical like other known producing oil and gas 
reservoirs ... . 
Development of the reserves in the will be across the board as it 
will include both the upstream oil industry and the downstream oil industry as more 
pipelines will have to be built to be able to transport the increased production of oil 
and gas to the refineries. It will also impact the petrochemical industry as there will 
be an increase in domestic feedstock for chemical manufacturing. 
Ms. did not claim that the petitioner discovered reserves that otherwise would not have been 
found; she stated only that the petitioner performed a task that requires considerable skill and 
knowledge. The petitioner did not show that his work on the or on earlier projects 
has already resulted in economic benefits, such as increased employment, that would not have 
resulted from the work of a minimally qualified Un ited States worker. (The term "minimally 
qualified " is not synonymous with "unqualified " or "underqualified " and should not be construed as 
such. ) 
The letters submitted with the petition focused on speculation about the possible future impact of the 
petitioner's work on projects such as the without documented examples of 
comparable past impact. Those letters that credited the petitioner with discovering, or helping to 
discover, 6 billion barrels of undeveloped reserves in Texas did not show that this discovery was 
beyond the abilities of minimally qualified United States workers. For example, they did not show 
that engineers had previously studied the same tracts of land and found no recoverable deposits. 
The petroleum industry and related industries, both upstream and downstream, have substantial 
intrinsic merit and national scope. Major fossil fuel projects, as a matter of course, have a significant 
economic impact. It does not follow that engineers in the field collectively qualify for a blanket 
waiver of the job offer requirement. The petitioner must show not only that he works on profitable 
projects, but that his work stands out from that of others in his field, such that it would be in the 
national interest to ensure that he, rather than a qualified United States worker, continue to engage in 
such projects in the United States. 
The director issued a notice of intent to deny the petition on September 12, 2013. The director 
acknowledged the letters and evidence submitted with the petition, but concluded that the petitioner 
had not established "a past record of specific prior achievement with some degree of influence on the 
field as a whole .. . [upon] which to base reasonable projections of future benefit to the national 
interest." The director instructed the petitioner to "[s]ubmit corroborative and independent evidence 
to establish the [petitioner's] influence on the field of petroleum engineering at large." 
In response to the notice, the petitioner stated that he "is innovative in his degree choice, " having 
pursued a degree "when no one wanted to be in this field despite the immediate job opportunities, " 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
resulting in "a tremendous short fall of Petroleum Engineers." We have explained, above, why a 
shortage of qualified workers in a given occupation would be a favorable consideration in granting, 
rather than waiving, labor certification. 
The petitioner stated that he "has vast and broad experience" in several areas of engineering, 
whereas "[m]ost engineers specialize in only one area for their entire career, " and therefore "he has 
no equal in the industry." The petitioner claimed to have "developed new geologic concepts and 
models, to re-define and re-assess reservoirs for new potential, " as well as "a novel nano based Gas­
to-Liquids technology." The petitioner did not establish that the field has adopted this technology. 
The petitioner indicated that he "is currently positioned as an independent consultant to smaller and 
independent oil and gas companies, and would prefer to remain in this realm. He does not currently 
have a job offer that would lead to an employer filing a labor certification." On Part 6, lines 7-8 of 
Form 1-140, the petitioner indicated that he intended to work in a permanent, existing (not new) 
position with The subsequent assertion that labor certification is 
inapplicable because he seeks to work "as an independent consultant," therefore, deviates from his 
initial claim. A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an 
effort to make an apparently deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 
22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1971), which require that beneficiaries seeking employment-based immigrant classification must 
possess the necessary qualifications as of the filing date of the visa petition. The assertion that the 
petitioner would work as an independent consultant, unable to obtain labor certification through an 
employer, did not apply at the time of filing. 
The petitioner submitted several new letters. stated that the petitioner "has presented new 
insights [and] applied new geological concepts" which are "unique for a reservoir engineer .. .. [The 
petitioner's] abilities and concepts have unlimited impacts in re-defining, re-modeling and re-assessing 
reservoirs that are resulting in identification of sweet spots for exploration, drilling and production of 
unconventional resources in old or emerging oil fields." Mr. asserted that the petitioner's 
recommendations have "proved correct as industry activity increases in the area as predicted." 
second letter repeats much of his first letter with added language regarding the 
petitioner's use of"his proprietary tools to identify and evaluate a new shale play in the heart of Texas" 
"[b]etween 2010 and 2012. " 
-
petitioner in 2002 at 
mechanical engineer with worked with the 
He stated: 
[The petitioner] through his knowledge of reservoir/fracture engineering and new 
insights into geological concepts of sequence stratigraphy has developed a robust 
methodology for analyzing and integrating geological, petrophysical, geochemical and 
geomechanical datasets to prove commercially viable shale oil/gas assets. His 
publications, presentations and recommendations directly led to capital providers 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
investing over $10MM to secure acreage in a mature oil field in North Texas and 3 years 
on, this has led to a flurry of oil/gas prospecting activities by competing oil/gas 
companies seeking to secure exploration rights to the multi-billion barrel of oil 
equivalent of shale oil and gas reserves uncovered that directly resulted from [the 
petitioner's] body of work. 
The petitioner did not submit copies of the claimed "publications, presentations and recommendations " 
said to have led to the investment in Texas. All of the petitioner's papers submitted with the initial 
submission, and all the publications listed on his curriculum vitae, concerned sites in Oklahoma rather 
than in Texas. 
general director of stated that the petitioner "discovered a 
petroleum field in South Texas while working for _ assets in that region. This is 
today one of the biggest producing fields in the State of Texas - the field. " Mr. 
also listed other projects that the petitioner undertook, one of which, Mr. 
claimed, resulted in assessing and proving the commercial value, 
resulting in a 50,000 acres lease acquisition .. . in West Texas, for the play. " 
Mr. also asserted: 
His presentation of the potential of natural gas from shale sources . . . was adjudged to 
have a huge impact in the field of petroleum engineering and served as the basis of 
business development negotiations between 
and • _ , resulting in a contract of over forty million dollars for 
the construction of a such a plant to be located within It is unfortunate 
that the contract was not performed because of the bankruptcy filing of 
... It is fair to say that [the petitioner] was instrumental and in fact an integral 
part of the developmental research that is now patented by the and the 
companies. 
Mr. did not identify the patented technology, and the petitioner did not submit a copy of the 
patent or show that his name appears on it. The petitioner has not established the impact of the airport 
project which, from the description above, appears to have been abandoned at a very early stage. 
A new letter from is largely identical to his previous letter, except that where he had 
previously referred to an unidentified "area with no previous shale production, " the new letter identifies 
the site as the 
_ 
" which "has the potential of becoming one of the 
biggest shale oil and gas producing areas in the State of Texas partly due to the impact of [the 
petitioner's] contributions." 
The petitioner has submitted some documentary evidence, but it fails to corroborate key claims in 
the letters. The letters that mentioned the used the terms 
interchangeably, but the documentation relating to the 
synonymous. in' 
does not show that the terms are 
.J," stated that the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
shale is "[a]lso known as the lower " The petitioner has not shown that the term' 
refers to the entire rather than to a smaller subdivision thereof. 
A report that the petitioner prepared for indicated that "[t]he 
.. . [is] attracting a lot of attention in the industry currently and is being described in recent 
industry publications as potentially the largest shale play in the United States .. .. Currently, the 
industry is estimating the resources within the at about 30 billion barrels of oil equivalent." 
The petitioner's biographical sketch at the end of that reoort indicates that he "discovered ... the 
A separate indicated that the petitioner 
discovered the by reviewing, in 2010, data gathered in 2004, which showed that "the 
reservoir characteristics of the Shale ... [are] similar to existing prolific producing shale gas plays in 
the US." The petitioner's initial submission did not identify the by name, and the 
petitioner has not submitted any independent, documentary evidence (as opposed to his own claims 
and letters prepared specifically to support the petition) to confirm this claim. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
The petitioner claimed that he "identified the site in 2010[,] two years before the 
general public" became aware of the site. The petitioner submitted copies of electronic slide 
presentations that he prepared, referring to the ' field. 
The presentations show creation dates in mid-2010 and early 2011, and "Last Modified" dates in 
October 2013, when the petitioner responded to the director's notice. The record does not specify 
the nature of the modifications. 
The petitioner submitted a printout of an article, ' 
_ _ 
Though undated, the article originates from circa December 2012, as 
shown by a passage which reads: "we will know a lot more about the potential in about four 
months, at the end of the first quarter of 20 13." The article also stated: "Over the past three years, 
some of the biggest exploration companies have set up shop in the area." Taken together, these two 
passages indicate that exploration of the began in late 2009, although the petitioner 
claimed to have identified the field in the summer of 2010. 
The petitioner, in his biographical sketch, claimed that he "also discovered the " 
_) in his letter quoted earlier, mentioned the _ but did not credit the 
petitioner with its discovery or initial exploitation. The petitioner's previously submitted curriculum 
vitae indicated that he performed assessments on unconventional plays, including _ but 
not that he discovered it. The petitioner's claimed work on began no earlier than April 
2010, when he began consulting with _ _ but background materials submitted with the 
petition show that oil and gas production from was already underway in 2008. The 
record therefore does not support the petitioner's claim to have discovered the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
The director denied the petition on May 3, 2014, stating that the petitioner's initial evidence included 
"generic statements " that "do not describe in sufficient detail the exact nature of the [petitioner's] 
work." The director determined that the petitioner's work had led to successful investments by his 
employers and clients, but did not show influence on the field as a whole. The director 
acknowledged the intrinsic merit of the petitioner's occupation, and the national scope of the benefit 
from the occupation. The director's discussion focused on the third prong of the NYSDOT national 
interest test. 
The first 17 pages of the appellate brief comprise excerpts from previous statements submitted with 
the petition and the response to the notice of intent to deny the petition. We have already addressed 
these materials. The petitioner asserts on appeal that the director failed "to use the two-step 
approach developed by the Kazarian case to the evaluation of evidence regarding exceptional 
ability." The director, however, did not deny the petition based on a failure to establish exceptional 
ability. The director acknowledged that the petitioner is a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. A separate finding of exceptional ability would not have changed the outcome of 
the proceeding. 
The petitioner asserts that the submitted evidence "clearly demonstrates that Petitioner has had 
influence on the field of petroleum engineering. First, Petitioner's colleagues clearly note that 
Petitioner has had an influence on his field. With respect, it is Petitioner's position that Petitioner's 
colleagues are in the best position to evaluate Petitioner's work " (emphasis in original). The 
petitioner asserts that the submitted letters are the best available evidence of his influence on the 
field, because he has worked "for private industry which is why there has not been a great deal of 
published information ." 
The petitioner has asserted, correctly, that letters have some weight in this proceeding, but letters alone 
cannot establish claims of fact for which first-hand verifiable evidence ought to exist. The Board of 
Immigration Appeals (BIA) has held that testimony should not be disregarded simply because it is 
"self-serv ing. " See, e. g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing cases). The 
BIA also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of corroborative 
testimonial and documentary evidence, where availabl e." /d. If testimonial evidence lacks 
specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit corroborative 
evidence. Matter ofY- B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have received consideration 
above. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, 
USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility 
for the benefit sought. /d. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is 
not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. See id. at 795; see 
also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
does not purport to be evidence as to "fact "). See also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 16 5 
(Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)). 
As explained further above, the letters include claims of fact that the record does not corroborate, 
such as the assertion that the petitioner discovered the Rather than 
show that the petitioner has made contributions beyond the capabilities of others in his field, or is 
responsible for innovations that others have since adopted or emulated, the letters indicated that the 
petitioner has helped his clients by using technologies and methods already found in the field. 
The record shows that the petitioner has identified promising sites for oil and gas exploration, but he 
has not shown that this is beyond what is expected of engineers employed for that purpose. The 
petitioner has established that the identification of the has made significant news within 
the industry, but he has not submitted sufficient verifiable, documentary evidence to support the 
claim that he identified the (as opposed to subdivisions or individual well sites within it). 
The petitioner has not established a past record of achievement at a level that would justify a waiver of 
the job offer requirement. The petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the scale of national 
acclaim, but the national interest waiver contemplates that his influence be national in scope. NYSDOT, 
22 I&N Dec. at 217, n.3. More specifically, the petitioner "must clearly present a significant benefit to 
the field of endeavor." /d. at 218. See also id. at 219, n.6 (the alien must have "a past history of 
demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole"). 
As is clear from the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person qualified to engage in a 
profession in the United States should be exempt from the requirement of a job offer based on national 
interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to grant national interest 
waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given profession, rather than on the merits of the 
individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not established that a waiver 
of the requirement of an approved labor certification will be in the national interest of the United States. 
We will dismiss the appeal for the above stated reasons. 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 Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.