dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Petroleum Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF O-A-A-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 10, 2018 
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 of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Texas 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 he had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, 
and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that he is eligible for a national 
interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
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. Because 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. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
Matter of O-A-A-
(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 set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884.1 
Dhanasar states that after EB-2 eligibility has been established, USCIS may, as a matter of 
discretion, grant a national interest waiver when the below prongs are met. 
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 efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the 
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, USCIS 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 for the 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 
.
Matter of O-A-A-
foreign national to secure a job offer or for 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 benefici al to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitoner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 3 The sole issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiv er of the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, we find he has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver 
under the analytical framework set forth in Dhanasar. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a "statement of 
intent" indicating that he is "currently working as a petroleum engineering data scientist in a premier 
independent oil and gas company." He stated that he is currently employed by an oil 
and gas company with $12 billion in annual revenue. 4 In addition, the Petitioner submitt ed a May 
2017 employment verification letter from stating that he "works as an Evalu ation and 
Planning [E&P] Professional in the E&P Analytics Department " and that his work for the company 
"involves helping our subsurface business unit integrate, model, predict, and analyze complex data, 
as well as other related activities." 5 He also offered a recent paycheck receipt, a copy of his April 
2017 job offer for his E&P "Professional 3" position, and general information about 
along with documentation of his public ation and citation history. Lastly, the RFE respon se included 
a May 2016 "Independent Consultant Agreement" indicating that the Petitioner will perform 
petroleum engineering consulting service s for ________ 6 
The Petition er has asserted that he intends " to use the mathem atical , statistical , computing , and 
engineering skills " to "solve challenging data analytics" problems in the petroleum engineering 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elab oration on these three prongs. 
'The record reflects that the Petitioner earned a doctorate degree in petroleum engineering from 
in 2012. 
4 The Petitioner did not compl ete Part 6 of the Form 1- 140, entitled "Basic Informati on About the Proposed 
Employment." 
5 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for him to have a job offer 
from a specific employer. However, we will consider information about his current and prospective positions to 
illustrate the capacity in which he intends to work in ord er t o determine whether his prop ose d endeavor meets the 
requirements of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
6 This agreement reflects that the Petitioner will establish contact with clients, develop leads, develop and deliver 
proposals for company services, find solutions for clients' needs , and provide consulting servic es to clients. 
3 
.
Matter of O-A-A-
industry, and that he also will "continue independent research in the field of carbon sequestration in 
deep saline aquifers." He described carbon sequestration as one of the proposed methods for 
reducing anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere therefore mitigating global 
climate change. The record includes letters of support and published articles discussing the benefits 
of his proposed areas of research, as well as a 2015-2016 policy resolution from the 
noting the benefits of enhanced oil production using carbon dioxide. 
Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner's proposed work has substantial merit. 
With respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, the Director's RFE 
asked for evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. In response, the 
Petitioner reiterated that he intends to continue his work in the field of petroleum engineering "with 
an emphasis on data science/data analytics." He also expressed his desire to "continue conducting 
independent research in the field of carbon sequestration." 
First, we note that the Petitioner does not sufficiently clarify how his work performing petroleum 
engineering services as an E&P professional for or as a consultant for 
relates to his proposed research. He states that he will utilize "tools, techniques, and 
methodologies that use data as the starting point, building blocks, and foundation of analysis, 
workflows, modeling, and decision making." In addition, the Petitioner asserts that his goal is "to 
develop data-driven technologies to better characterize complex reservoirs, build data-driven 
reservoir models, smart proxies of numerical models and data-driven reservoir management tools." 
He does not explain the capacity in which he intends to develop these technologies, whether in the 
private or public sector, nor does he sufficiently describe what portion of his time he intends to 
devote to such activities. 
The record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed petroleum engineering and consulting work 
has implications beyond any individual company and its business partners or clients at a level 
sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of his endeavor. He has not demonstrated that the 
specific work he proposes to undertake for the aforementioned companies has broader implications 
in the field of petroleum engineering, or otherwise offers original innovations that contribute to 
petroleum data driven analytics in the broader oil and gas industry. 7 
Regardless, to the extent that the Petitioner proposes to conduct carbon sequestration research and 
development, we find the evidence sufficient to demonstrate that such research is of national 
importance. The Petitioner submits evidence that the and 
have both advocated for and proposed legislation to address carbon sequestration , particularly storage at 
deep saline formations a nd oil and gas reservoirs. Thu s, the record shows t hat r esea rch in this area 
stands to have broader implications beyond a ny o ne company or orga nization, whether through the 
development of advances in carbon sequestratio n techniqu es or through resea rch for dissemin ation to 
others in the fie ld through profess ional journals a nd conferences. As the Petitioner has doc umented 
7 In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to t he level of having national 
importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. 
4 
.
Matter of O-A-A-
both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed carbon sequestration research, he 
meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
With respect to the second prong of the Dhanasar analysis, however, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated a record of success or progress in his field, or a degree of interest in his work from 
relevant parties, rising to the level of rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed 
research. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The record includes a copy of the Petitioner's 
resume, educational credentials, evidence of his peer review activities, a scholar citation 
history, and several letters of recommendation. In the appellate submission, the Petitioner states that 
his research has been cited by scholars from Australia, Canada, Ecuador, and the United States, 
including researchers at the 
and he claims that the Director failed "to proper! y acknowledge the influence of (his] research. " 
The record contains several articles written by the Petitioner that discuss carbon storage and 
sequestration, with the most recent article published in the 
in 2013. 8 The record does not, however, include evidence that this work constitutes a record of 
success or otherwise renders him well positioned to advance his proposed research. 
On appeal, the Petitioner has not presented sufficient documentation illustrating the significance of 
his research findings, nor has he addressed the Director's finding that he has not published much 
scholarly work in nearly five years. He avers that his citation record is evidence that he is well 
positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 9 The Petitioner does not, however, offer comparative 
statistics indicating how often other petroleum engineering researchers are cited, nor does the record 
otherwise demonstrate 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 this prong. Further, while the 
8 On appeal, the Petitioner avers that we should also consider an article that he authored entitled 
published in the 
in 2016. The Director correctly noted that this article was published after the date of filing of this petition . 
The Petitioner avers on appeal that the article was accepted for publication prior to the filing and therefore should be 
considered as evidence of his continuing influence. While we agree with the Director that eligibility must be established 
at the time of filing, we have included the article in evaluating whether the Petitioner's publication record demonstrates 
his eligibility. 
9 The Petitioner's appellate submission includes statements that he has a stronger citation record than Dr. Dhanas ar, the 
petitioner in our precedent decision. While we listed Dr. Dhanasar's "publications and other published materials that cite 
his work" among the documents he presented, our determination that he was well positioned under the second prong was 
not based on his citation record. Rather, in that case we found "[t]he petitioner's education, experience, and expertise in 
his field, the significance of his role in research projects, as well as the sustained interest of and funding from 
government entities such as and 
position him well to continue to advance his proposed endeavor of hypersonic technology resea rch.'' See Dhanasar, 26 
I&N Dec. at 891, 893. We reiterate that we look to a variety of factors in determining whether a petitioner is well 
positioned to advance his proposed endeavor and citations are merely one factor among many that may contribute to 
such a finding. 
s 
.
Matter of O-A-A-
Petitioner points to the fact that his work has 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.10 Moreover, the record does not 
indicate that his research findings have been employed by government or private sector entities, or 
that his work has affected specific oil and gas reservoir development projects. 
The record also includes several letters of recommendation. While complementary of the 
Petitioner's work, they do not offer sufficient detail regarding his specific research accomplishments. 
For example, the record includes a letter from , a geophysicist for 
He states that the Petitioner has made "recognized contributions" to the field of carbon 
sequestration and that he has "benefited from [the Petitioner's] work by using some of the 
techniques in reservoir modeling." does not explain which techniques he utilized, nor does 
he sufficiently explain the nature of the Petitioner's contribution or offer adequate detail explaining 
how the Petitioner's work renders him well positioned to advance the proposed research endeavor. 
In addition, a staff scientist in the ===== Division at 
and a visiting professor at 11 indicates that the 
Petitioner "developed a novel method of reducing aquiver pressurization while also increasing the 
storage efficiency of the injected CO2." While contends that he and other members of 
the research community found the Petitioner's work "to be of significant value," he does not offer 
specific examples of how the Petitioner's simulation method has generated positive interest among 
relevant parties, has been implemented in the oil and gas industry, or otherwise reflects a record of 
success in his area of research. 
The record also includes a letter from a reservoir engineering advisor for 
, an independent oil and gas company. states that he became familiar with the 
Petitioner's technical abilities when he attended a software web demonstration given by the 
Petitioner. He also asserts that the Petitioner "is a talented researcher with unique and exceptional 
skills in reservoir characterization, pressure transient analysis and fluid flow modeling in porous 
media." does not, however, offer any additional information or evidence to support his 
statements. 
In sum, while the aforementioned colleagues and others attest that the Petitioner is respected by his 
peers, these references do not adequately explain how 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. 12 As such, the Petit ioner has not demonstrated his e ligibility under 
the seco nd prong of the Dhana sar framework. 
10 The downloads of the Petitioner's two articles in corroborate that he has 
disseminated his findings, but they are not sufficient to demonstrate a record of success of, or interest in, his research. 
11 notes that the Petitioner "was a student of mine during my time at " 
12 We note that, on appeal, the Petitioner contends the Director erred in not considering his employment with 
.
Matter of O-A-A-
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
Finally, with regard to the third prong of the Dhanasar analysis, the Petitioner has not established 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. He has not, for instance, provided information or evidence outlining 
why a labor certification would be impractical in his case; whether the United States would benefit 
from his contributions even if other U.S. workers are also available; or whether urgency warrants 
foregoing the labor certification process. In addition, as the Petitioner has not established that he is 
well positioned to advance his proposed research as required by the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further discussion of the balancing 
factors under the third prong would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite three prongs set forth in the 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of O-A-A-, ID# 1285616 (AAO July 10, 2018) 
as evidence that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. However, as noted by the Director, the 
Petitioner's experience as a petroleum engineering data scientist with began after he filed the instant 
petition and therefore does not show his eligibility under the second prong of the Dhanasar analysis at the time of fi ling. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Regardless, the record does not indicate the Petitioner will conduct his proposed research as 
part of his employment with nor does it otherwise show how this position renders him well positioned to 
advance his proposed endeavor.