dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Petroleum Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 05, 2023 In Re: 28091997 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a petroleum engineer in the oil and gas field, 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 the record did not establish 
the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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 l&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 
discretion1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
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). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Advanced Degree Professional 
The evidence establishes the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree 
followed by at least five years of post-baccalaureate experience. Therefore, the record supports a 
finding that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established eligibility 
for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. While we do not discuss each piece of 
evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
B. The Proposed Endeavor 
In his response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated, "I intend to continue 
working in the U.S. as a Petroleum Engineer[,] as an employee of a U.S.-based company[,] such as 
my current employer,! Ior as an independent consultant delivering exceptional drilling, 
[oil] well completion and packers products, services, and projects to multinational energy companies 
in the Oil & Gas industry .... " Although the Petitioner provided significant background detail on the 
work he performs for his current employer, he has not clarified how he will be employed as a 
petroleum engineer within the context of his proposed endeavor. Specifically, the Petitioner stated 
that he may work as a petroleum engineer for his current employer, another U.S.-based employer, or 
as an independent consultant. The record does not reflect whether the proposed endeavor involves 
pursuing one or each one of these employment avenues, some combination of them, or whether he 
will hold these positions simultaneously or concurrently. 
The purpose of a national interest waiver is not to enable a petitioner to engage in a domestic job 
search. In Dhanasar, we held that a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. To establish national importance, 
the Petitioner must demonstrate the proposed endeavor's impact, rather than relying upon the 
importance of petroleum engineers or the oil and gas industry as a whole. Therefore, defining the 
proposed endeavor is material, as the specific proposed endeavor informs the overall national interest 
waiver inquiry. The level of impact an endeavor will have may differ depending on the employment 
context. To illustrate by example, if the Petitioner pursues self-employment as a petroleum engineer 
consultant, his business costs, range of clients, and the scale upon which he consults would differ from 
that which he would encounter when serving as a petroleum engineer with his current employer, a 
company that has an established reputation and pre-existing clients. Without sufficient information 
concerning the specific proposed endeavor, as opposed to the petroleum engineer occupation m 
general, we cannot ascertain its impact. 
In determining whether an individual qualifies for anational interest waiver, we must rely on the specific 
proposed endeavor to determine whether (1) it has both substantial merit and national importance and (2) 
the foreign national is well positioned to advance it under the Dhanasar analysis. Because the Petitioner 
has not provided sufficient information regarding his proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that he 
meets either the first or second prong, or that he has established eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
2 
While the appeal may be dismissed on this issue alone, the evidence focuses heavily on the Petitioner's 
work with his current employer. As such, we provide additional analysis of the Petitioner's eligibility 
under the Dhanasar framework based upon aproposed endeavor of continuing work in the same capacity. 
C. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor the 
individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in arange 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. 
Id. Additionally, when 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 "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See id. 
The Petitioner provided background materials concerning the size, economic value, and importance 
of the oil and gas industry, as well as the shortage of qualified labor, and the importance of U.S. energy 
independence. We conclude that these materials support the Director's finding that the proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit. However, the articles and reports largely address the industry or 
occupation as a whole, rather than the specific proposed endeavor. As these materials do not contain 
analysis of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, it cannot be concluded that they support a 
finding that the endeavor has national importance. 
The Petitioner provided various background materials on his work experience with his employer, 
including his role as a product champion for completion packers and packer processes within the 
industry. Through this, the Petitioner demonstrated the importance of packer solutions and the 
precision required to implement them. We understand that the role of a product champion for 
completion packers contributes to efficient oil extraction while minimizing environmental waste and 
damage. While we have considered this information, the Petitioner has not established how his 
specific proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. Instead, he has demonstrated the 
collective and general importance of a product champion for completion packers. In other words, we 
conclude that the general importance of packer solutions and of the product champion role is not 
necessarily sufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed 
endeavor. 
The Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor is important because if someone incorrectly 
performs the role, then the oil well, environment, and industry can be harmed. Stated simply, the 
Petitioner asserts that by performing his role competently and without additional negative impact, his 
proposed endeavor to work in this role rises to the level of national importance. However, ably 
performing one's job to prevent environmental damage highlights the consequences of not performing 
the job correctly, rather than the positive impact of such an endeavor. Here, the Petitioner attempts to 
demonstrate a positive impact rising to the level of national importance by presenting the important 
downsides of not performing the job correctly. Preventing a negative effect is not necessarily 
sufficient to establish an affirmative positive impact that rises to the level of national importance. 
If the Petitioner were to demonstrate that working for his current employer as a petroleum engineer 
affirmatively produces a positive impact, he would need to provide additional details to establish that 
3 
such an impact rises to the level of national importance. To do this, the Petitioner could offer 
information such as how many product champions for completion packers I I employs; 
how many wells and types of packers other oil companies have; how many packers are used in each 
well; for how many wells the Petitioner has provided packers; and how product champions for 
completion packers compare with other roles in the oil drilling process. Data such as this would offer 
context for which to determine whether the specific proposed endeavor's impact reaches beyond other 
petroleum engineers working in similar roles. It is insufficient to demonstrate that an occupational 
category is of national importance. Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate that his specific proposed 
endeavor is of national importance. 
The Petitioner contends that his role as a petroleum engineer positively impacts the United States by 
contributing to the nation's energy independence; however, he has not substantiated this assertion. 
Helpful information to establish this would include whether the wells for which the Petitioner has 
provided packer solutions are located within the United States, as opposed to internationally. 
Similarly, the Petitioner may support his assertion by providing documentation that the clients 
purchasing the Petitioner's packers are U.S.-based businesses rather than foreign businesses. As the 
record does not offer sufficient details about such matters, we cannot conclude that the benefit of the 
Petitioner's work adds to our energy independence. 
The Petitioner emphasized the importance of the energy industry for the United States, the world's 
economy, and society, requesting that we not ignore how the oil and gas industry works in assisting 
the entire country's economic growth through its billions of dollars of yearly revenue. While we 
acknowledge that economic activity of any kind has the potential to impact the economy, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated how the economic activity his specific proposed endeavor generates would rise 
to the level of national importance. The Petitioner contends that the size and scale ofI I 
and its sales to clients worldwide impacts the overall oil and gas industry, including in the United 
States; however, if the potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor is to enable the United 
States to be energy independent, then we would expect the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to primarily 
involve domestic transactions between U.S. companies. We noted in Dhanasar 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 paiiicular field." 
Id. Even if we were to agree thatl Iis a multinational company that influences the global 
oil and gas industry, this would not be sufficient to support a finding that the Petitioner's specific 
proposed endeavor of working atl Ihas global implications within the oil and gas field or 
that it produces an impact rising to the level of national importance for the United States. 
The Petitioner emphasized his designs are the subject of patents. Documents in the record discuss the 
Petitioner's involvement in designing packers that save his employer money, boost their profits, and 
generate new patents; however, even if this were corroborated, the evidence does not clarify how the 
Petitioner's design extended beyond his employer to affect the field as a whole. We understand that
I !supplies other companies in the oil and gas industry with packers featuring the patented 
design and partners in mutually beneficial ways with other companies using or manufacturing the 
packers; however, the business activity these packers generate appears to primarily benefit 
I land its direct partners and clients. The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated how 
these packers influence the oil and gas field more broadly. Apart from purchases or partnering with 
4 
the Petitioner's employer, the patented packer design does not appear to be available to the industry 
as a whole. 
To establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner emphasized his 
successful past performance in various positions and the results he achieved for his employers. Like 
the Director, we conclude that the evidence provided does not substantiate how the Petitioner's past 
performance extended beyond his employers and clients to impact the field more broadly. We 
reviewed the recommendation letters from other professionals in the industry; however, they do not 
support a finding of the Petitioner's eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong. The authors of the 
letters discussed the results he achieved for his employer and clients and how the Petitioner performed 
well on various projects in the past. The authors did not sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's 
performance or the results he achieved extended beyond his employer and the specific parties involved 
to impact the field more broadly. 
To illustrate with specific examples, the letter fromj !mentions a tool called 'I.__ __. 
which he contends the Petitioner developed to calculate probable project results to inform the 
probability of a project achieving a financial oal. However, I I letter does not 
demonstrate whether others outside of use the tool or whether it affects the oi I and gas 
field as a whole. We reviewed._______ ___,first and second recommendation letters. He 
writes that the layout and interface the Petitioner devised while working tori !inspired 
him to apply similar methods in his work with Amazon Web Services' (AWS) project designs. 
However,! Idoes not provide sufficient details to substantiate the Petitioner's influence, 
such as the results of the inspired project designs, how the designs impacted AWS or the industry as 
a whole, whether the Petitioner's methods were actually implemented, and whether others in AWS, or 
the field in general, have adopted these methods and attributed them to the Petitioner. Likewise,c=]
I !explains in his letter that he gained skills, knowledge, and expertise from working 
alongside the Petitioner atl land uses what he gained with the Petitioner to carry out a 
geothermal energy project with another company. Although._________ ___,describe the 
Petitioner's work and influence as contributions to the industry, the letters only describe the 
Petitioner's impact to them personally. In other words, the Petitioner appears to have influenced them 
much like a teacher influences a student. In Dhanasar, we determined that 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. Accordingly, we cannot conclude these letters substantiate a finding 
that the Petitioner's work has impacted the field more broadly. 
The Petitioner provided a letter from .____---r------.----' who wrote that, after a joint product line 
development project, the Petitioner enabled to "maintain a group of" employees in his oil 
and gas company,._________________ __. states the Petitioner oversaw the 
design and technical requirements for the "BluePack" technology, whilec=Jhandled the engineering 
activities to develop the projects. As a result of the success of the product sales,D had sufficient 
revenue to "maintain and hire employees." If not for the product demand the Petitioner created,LJ 
"could not have maintained the number of 30 employees" or started a new completion manufacturing 
subsidiary. The letter does not specify how many jobs the product line development project created 
versus maintained, nor doesl lotter sufficient details about what the created jobs were, how 
long the iobs existed, whether they still exist, and how much they paid. While we acknowledge□ 
I hetter, generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field 
5 
have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) 
(holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not explained how the maintenance or creation of 30 job is of such 
economic benefit that it rises to the level of national importance. 
In res onse to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided an advisory opinion letter froml I 
L..._ _______ ,___ ____.University. Regarding the national importance portion of Dhanasar 's 
first prong,~--~ provided a general overview of the importance and value of the oil and gas 
industry, as well as the challenges to domesticating our petroleum production. Similar tol I 
letter! !offered generalized statements about job creation but did not provide sufficient details 
regarding the proposed endeavor's specific job creation impact. Without sufficient information or 
evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, 
the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. I lalso focused on the 
Petitioner's personal and professional qualifications and the expertise he acquired; however, these 
factors pertain to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. The second prong "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. The issue here is whether the specific 
endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar ·s first prong. 
As I I opinion letter does not meaningfully discuss details about how the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor stands to have broader implications or substantial positive economic impact, we 
conclude that it is of little probative value in this matter. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and a letter fromI I the Petitioner's coworker. 
The Petitioner asserts the Director's decision violates the Administrative Procedures Act because it 
contains boilerplate, contradictory, and arbitrary statements and ignores the Petitioner's evidence. 
Aside frornl lletter, the Petitioner primarily relies upon the evidence and assertions he 
previously provided, which we addressed above. 2 
I lwrites that the Petitioner developed software to simulate valve operations in downhole well 
environments, which reduces the time required for valve selections, and thatl !adopted 
this technology across its engineering departments worldwide. However, I I offers little 
information with which to corroborate his statements. For instance, the letter does not contain details 
about the Petitioner's software design process, how the decreased valve selection time has impacted 
the industry overall, or how this technology is attributable to the Petitioner. I I also asserts the 
Petitioner created and developed technologies such as thel Iboth of which 
have "proved to significantly impact [the Petitioner's] field of endeavor and represent a major 
contribution not only to the company but to the Oil & Gas industry as a whole." However, apart from
I I assertion, we have little concrete evidence of how these technologies constitute major 
contributions to the industry. As we explained previously, generalized and conclusory statements that 
do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. 
2 When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be required 
to specifically address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence the 
Petitioner presents. Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973,976 
(1st Cir.1992); see also Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. U.S. INS, 984 
F.2d 105, 107 (4th Cir. 1993). 
6 
The Petitioner also refers to a non-precedent decision, Matter of F-E-, ID# 46885 (AAO Mar. 20, 
2017), concerning a petitioner whom we found eligible for a national interest waiver. This decision 
was not published as precedent and therefore does not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). We acknowledge the Petitioner's attempt to provide similar evidence to that 
which the petitioner provided in the referenced non-precedent decision. However, Matter of F-E-may 
be distinguished based on the evidence in the record, the issues considered, and applicable law and 
policy. In Matter of F-E-, we determined that the proposed endeavor would affect the mining field 
more broadly. The specific facts of the individual case are not analogous to the matter at hand. Unlike 
the petitioner in Matter of F-E-, the Petitioner here has not adequately established that his proposed 
endeavor stands to impact his field more broadly or extend beyond his employer, partnerships, and 
clientele. 
111. CONCLUSION 
The documentation in the record does not establish a specific proposed endeavor. Even assuming the 
Petitioner intends to continue his current employment as his proposed endeavor, the evidence does not 
establish the national importance of it, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent 
decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the 
Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "courts and 
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 
they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 {BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7