dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Petroleum Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF J-D-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 29, 2017 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, 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 the 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 ol 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, finding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree, but that she had not established that a waiver of a job offer and thus of 
a labor certification would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. In 
January 2017, we issued a request for evidence (RFE) asking the Petitioner to provide evidence 
satisfying the three-part framework set forth in Dhanasar. 
In support of her appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and argues tl1at she is 
eligible for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
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. Becquse this classification 
requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required 
to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Matter of.J-D-
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(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) National interest waiver. ... [T]he 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. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we recently 
set forth a new framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. See Dhanasar, 26 J&N 
Dec. 884. 1 Dhanasar clarifies that, after EB-2 eligibility as an advanced degree professional or 
individual of exceptional ability has been established, USCIS may grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence: ( 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. If these 
three elements are satisfied, USCIS may approve the national interest waiver as a matter of 
discretion. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors 
including, but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in 
related or similar efiorts; a model or plan for future· activities; any progress towards achieving the 
1 
In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department o{ 
Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 
.
Matter~~ J-D-
proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities 
or individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate 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. In 
performing this analysis , USCJS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the 
foreign national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either tor the 
foreign national to secure a job otTer or tor the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether , 
even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit 
from the foreign national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's 
contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, 
the factor(s) considered must, taken together, indicate 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. 2 
II. INTRODUCTION 
The Petitioner received a Master of Science degree in petroleum engineering from 
in 2009. Accordingly, the Director found that the Petitioner qualified as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. The sole issue to be detennined is whether the Petitioner has 
established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in 
the national interest. 
At the time of tiling the petition, the Petitioner was employed as an engineering advisor to the vice 
president of global drilling and completions operations at 
In an introductory letter, she explained that she works to ensure the integrity of 
global drilling and completions operations through "enhancing risk mitigation activities 
and functional and organizational capabilities to significantly improve performances across all facets 
in the drilling and completions community to deliver safe, reliable and efficient operations." The 
Petitioner's job responsibilities included management of projects related to drilling and completion 
reorganization, risk mitigation for strategic projects, improvement of functional capability for the 
company's global drilling and completion organization, and ensl!ring standardization to improve 
overall drilling efticiency and cost. 
Ill. ANALYSIS 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
Our RFE asked the Petitioner to provide updated information and evidence regarding her current 
employment and her plans tor future work in the oil and gas industry. In response, the Petitioner 
submits a January 2017 letter from vice president of drilling and completions for 
indicating- that she "is currently serving as Pore Pressure and Rock Mechanics Subject 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 888-91 , for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 
.
Matter C?f.l-D-
Matter Expert working in Thailand office." Regarding the Petitioner's plans for future 
work in the United States, assetts that her "prospective position in the United States is 
Engineering Advisor in Business Unit." The Petitioner 
contends that she will "be responsible for improving drilling and completions operations efficiency 
and enhancing safety standards in the operations." She provides 
"Drilling and Completions" job description, which states: "A career in drilling and completions 
offers the opportunity to ensure that drilling operations and completion techniques are 
safe, environmentally conscious and cost-efficient. Whether you're an engineer or a drill site/well 
site manager, you'll apply your expert knowledge and skills to help bring the world vital energy." 
We find that the Petitioner's proposed work as an engineering advisor, which helps ensure the integrity 
of her company's drilling and completion operations, has substantial merit. In his letter, 
states that "America needs to find more sources of energy" and that the vast resources of the deep 
oceans should be tapped, but that incidents like the oil spill must be avoided due to 
adverse financial and environmental consequences. Fmthermore, the record includes published a,~ticles 
and reports focusing on safety issues in oil and gas operations, and letters from professionals at 
· and other companies attesting to importance of ensuring sate drilling practices while expanding our 
nation's energy resource development. 
With respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, our RFE asked for 
evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her proposed endeavor. Specifically, we 
requested documentation demonstrating that her proposed work has broader implications for the field 
of petroleum engineering. 
The Petitioner argues that her "work goes far beyond just having 
an impact on - it has n<~;tional 
economic and environmental implications for the oil and gas industry and the nation as a whole." She 
states that her prior work as engineering advisor to the vice president of Global Drilling and 
Completions "was not limited to local Texas office's [sic], but extended to the company's 
national and international offices as well." She asserts that her engineering work with the 
business unit will similarly "be national in scope and not tied only to the Texas company 
office." We note, however, that the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that 
her prospective role as engineering advisor in business unit has 
a commensurate level of impact on the company 's. national or international operations as her 
previous posttlon. More importantly , she has not established that her proposed work has 
implications beyond her company and its business partners at a level sufficient to demonstrate the 
national importance of her endeavor. 3 
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. /d. at 893. While the Petitioner emphasizes the large 
scale of drilling operations and refining capacity, she has not demonstrated that an impact on this single 
company and its projects necessarily equates to a broader impact on the oil and gas industry. 
4 
.
Matter C?f J-D-
As evidence of the implications of her prospective position, the Petitioner points to the letter from 
He 
contends that her work satisfies the need for "a petroleum engineer who can assist the 
industry to adapt and change its operations to ensure safe, etticient and tl-uitful oil and gas production in 
America's deep oceans, maintaining high levels of safety assurance while drilling in the 
and thus assisting us in becoming less dependenton foreign oil and gas." While 
indicates that the Petitioner's work will assist the industry to adapt and change, the record does not 
show that the specific work she proposes to undertake offers original innovations that contribute to 
drilling safety advancements in the oil and gas industry, or otherwise has broader implications in-the 
field of petroleum engineering. Furthermore , the record does not sufficiently corroborate the 
assertion that the Petitioner's engineering work for business 
unit stands to impact the nation's overall dependence on foreign oil and gas. As the Petitioner has 
not established that her endeavor's prospective impact supports a finding of national importance , she 
has not met the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner's qualifications. Our 
RFE requested the Petitioner to submit documentation showing that she is well positioned to advance 
her proposed endeavor. In response, the Petitioner provides evidence of her work on various 
projects at including oil field development reviews, reports on well planning and 
processes, updates to handbook, a ' 
at 
audits, 
devices for rig-based operations. 
at and graduate research at 
Petitioner's past experience as a petroleum 
proposed endeavor. 
reviews, and selection of mobile tablet 
She also submits reference letters discussing her work 
As discussed below, we find that the 
engineer renders her well positioned to advance her 
Several of the letters attest that the Petitioner has played a role in advancing drilling safety practices 
utilized by and its business partners and contractors. For example , states that the 
Petitioner developed the company's "drilling planning and operation guideline[s] for [a] shallow 
reservoir field," and that she led a team which devised a' 
for non-operated joint venture drilling projects to ensure that other business partner operators 
minimize risks and have proper safeguards in place at their drilling sites. He also notes that she 
performed a "successful audit project for [two] rig contractor 
companies, and who provide tigs, associated equipment , and personnel to ' 
Multiple references from within and outside the company also discuss the Petitioner's 
support of program, a drilling operations safety assurance process under which 
all of the company's business units, wells, and rigs must be certified to certain well control standards. 
4 
While the record includes other letters that discuss the implications of the Petitioner 's work , they describe the potential 
impact of her previous roles, rather than that of the propo sed endeavor identified in response to our RFE. 
5 
.
Matter <?f.J-D-
Specifically, notes that the Petitioner served on a team of 20 individuals who helped 
simplify and enhance the program's effectiveness through development of "external 
assessment protocol and for non-operated joint venture operations" components. Another 
reference, senior vice president of well control and blowout support at Add 
Energy, mentions his familiarity with the Petitioner's "work in External Assessment 
Protocols'" and claims that she "has been instrumental in supporting " the program. The 
Petitioner also presents a letter from presently the executive vice president of 
who previously worked with her at in a consulting capacity as director of North 
American operations at asserts that the Petitioner "spearheaded the 
program's implementation milestones" and that her team delivered "program goals ahead 
of schedule." 
As an additional example of the Petitioner's achievements, a contract 
drilling engineer for notes that he collaborated with her "o n developing drilling , 
completion designs , and procedures for a oil field offshore project in Africa." He 
indicates that the Petitioner devised a "probabilistic drilling and completion cost estimating " model 
that utilized past operational data to predict future performance. fmther states that 
the Petitioner's "model is the standard operating procedure" for all projects within their business unit 
at 
In addition to her work for the record includes documentation pertaining to the Petitioner's 
graduate research at Her research advisor, a professor in 
the department of engineering at states: "In one of our studies on well 
stimulation technique optimization, . [the Petitioner] demonstrated her superior research ability 
and played a signit1cant role in the study." fmther indicates that the Petitioner "made a 
significant breakthrough toward understanding of the partial monolayer proppant fracturing 
technique" and provided "a better way to improve well stimulation technique to maximize oil and 
gas recovery." 5 
The evidence discussed above is sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to 
advance her proposed endeavor of improving the efficiency of drilling and completions and 
enhancing safety standards in operations. 6 Accordingly, she has 
established that she satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
5 Although the Petitioner's graduate work involved her investigation of new fracturing techniques, we note that her 
proposed endeavor at is not focused on conducting original research. 
6 
While the Petitioner is well positioned to improve her business unit's drilling and completions' efficiency and 
safety standards, the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that her past work has affected the petroleum engineering 
field beyond her company's operations and business partnerships, or that she has otherwise been integral to advancing 
safer drilling and completions innovations that have garnered significant interest in her industry. For instance, while 
several references focus on the Petitioner's involvement with program, the letters do not establish 
that the Petitioner was among those primarily responsible for conceptualizing or devising the program. Furthermore, 
although the record inc! udes articles about Well Safe in Rigzone (20 14 ), Of!~·luwe Engineer D(gital (20 14 ), and Drilling 
Contractor (20 13) which mention other engineers, the articles do not discuss the Petitioner or her specific innovative 
6 
.
Matter of.J-D-
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
The Petitioner asserts that it would be impractical for her to obtain a labor certification. She contends 
that "she possesses the special skill of mastery of cutting-end [sic] technology, the knowledge of safe 
drilling techniques on land and in deepwater both in the United States and abroad, and the ability of 
innovative thinking to solve technical and practical problems within drilling and completions 
projects, none of which can be articulated on an application for labor certification.'' In addition, the 
Petitioner notes that "the job requirements ... must represent the employer's actual minimum 
requirements" and "cannot represent what the employer would prefer for the position." She fm1her 
states that even if other U.S.. workers with the same qualifications were available, the United States 
would still benefit from her contributions. Lastly, the Petitioner indicates that avoiding economic 
and environmental disasters such as the incident is "sufficiently urgent to 
warrant foregoing the labor certification process." 
We acknowledge the likelihood that some of the Petitioner's knowledge and experience exceeds the 
minimum requirements for her occupation and therefore could not be easily articulated on an 
application for labor certification. 7 The Petitioner, however, has not shown that she presents a 
significant benefit to the United States through her proposed endeavor or that her prospective work 
would serve an urgent national interest. While the Petitioner proposes to perfonn functions that 
improve safety and efficiency with respect to her company's 
drilling operations, these factors do not 
outweigh the benefits inherent in the labor certification process. With respect to the prevention of 
catastrophic events, the Petitioner has not demonstrated an urgent national interest in her own 
contributions to achieve this aim, nor has she shown that she offers safety innovations or other 
contributions that would benefit the nation even if other qualified U.S. \Vorkers were available. In sum, 
the evidence does not indicate that the Petitioner offers contributions of such value that, on balance, it 
would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job otTer and thus of a labor 
certification. The Petitioner therefore has not established that she meets the third prong of the 
Dhanasar framevv'ork. 
contributions to the program. Therefore, had the Petitioner met the first prong by demonstrating that her 
proposed endeavor has broader implications in the oil and gas industry (such as influencing safety practices in the 
petroleum engineering field or developing innovative drilling and completions methods that affect the industry), the 
record does not show that her background and progress in those broader endeavors render her well positioned to advance 
them. 
7 
The labor certification process is designed to certify that a foreign worker will not displace nor adversely affect the 
wages and working conditions of U.S. workers who are similarly employed. Job requirements must adhere to what is 
customarily required for the occupation in the United States and may not be tailored to the foreign worker's 
qualifications or unduly restrictive, unless adequately documented as arising from business necessity. 
7 
Matter of J-D-
IV. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework, 
we find that she has not established eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of.J-D-, ID# 100146 (AAO Mar. 29, 2017) 
8