dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Petroleum Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10832070 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 12, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a petroleum engineer, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon 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. 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: 
(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. 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion 2, 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. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national impmiance, 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 foreign 
national to secure a job off er 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 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State 
Department of Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCJS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to 
grant or deny a national interest waiverto be discretionaiy in nature). 
2 
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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined 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 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated eligibility under Dhanasar's three-prong analytical framework. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Imp01iance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 8 89. In his initial cover letter, the Petitioner claimed that "his work is devoted 
to research and development of technology for producing oil and gas and is in the national interest of US 
to attain self-sufficiency in energy resources." Moreover, he stated that his "scientific contributions in 
the field of A1iificial Lift Technology can substantially improve the oil production and reduce the 
operation costs." 4 The Petitioner provided reference letters discussing the importance of artificial lift 
technology. For example, "[i]n the United States Artificial lift is used in nearly all oil wells" and "[s]ome 
of these wells [] need artificial lift to be installed at the early stage of the well life"I I 
"[c]urrently, there are nearly 1,000,000 producing well[s] in the world" and "[m]ore than 90% of these 
are on some f01m of aiiificial lift for enhanced production"! I, and "[m]ost of the wells 
in the U.S. produce from unconventional reservoirs" and "[t]he rapid decline rates in unconventional 
resources necessitate artificial lift much sooner in the life of the well, often within monfus after the well 
is put on production" ~ I. The record also contains articles and documentation relating 
to artificial lift technology, shale oil and gas resources, and computational fluid dynamics. Here, tlte 
Petitioner has sufficiently shown the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner satisfied the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the petitioner in order to determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
3 SeeDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 On appeal, the Petitioner further defines artificial lift: 
Artificial lift refers to the use of artificial means to increase the flow of liquids, such as crude oil or 
water, from a production well. Generally, this is achieved by the use of a mechanical device inside the 
well (known as pump or velocity string) or by decreasing the weight of the hydrostatic column by 
injecting gas into the liquid some distance down the well. Artificial lift is needed in wells when there i<; 
insufficient pressure in the reservoir to lift the produced fluids to the surface, but often used in naturally 
flowing wells to increase the flow rate above what would flow naturally. The produced fluid can be oi~ 
water or a mix of oil and water. typically mixed with some amount of gas. Essentially, anyliquid­
producingreservoirwill have a 'reservoir pressure' - some level of energy or potential- tha twill foice 
fluid (liquid, gas or both)to areas oflowerenergy orpotential. 
3 
890. The record includes documentation of his curriculum vitae, academic credentials and awards, 
published materials, conferencepapers,patentexperience, peerreview activity, and memberships. He 
also offered recommendation letters and evidence of citations to his research. For the reasons 
discussed below, the evidence in the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well 
positioned to advance his proposed research under Dhanasar's second prong. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner provided a job letter reflecting his employment as a "Temporn1y 
Worker" a~ I in the I lsince 
September 20 I 7 ~oximately one month after receiving his doctorate degree. According to his 
curriculum vitae,l__Jemploys him as a research assistant. However, the Petitioner has not shown that 
the remaining time in his temporary position is sufficient to render him well positioned to advance his 
proposed endeavor. On ap:eal 11the Petitioner submits an October2019 job letterfrortj I 
engineer manager atl !indicating that the Petitioner "recently joined" the company 
and discussed the Petitioner's roles, responsibilities, and achievements. In addition, the Petitioner offers 
two authored scholarly articles published in 2019, after he filed his petition. 5 The Petitioner must establish 
that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of filing and 
continuing through adjudication. See 8 C.F.R § 103.2(6 )(1 ). As the evidence relates to events occurring 
after he filed his petition in December 2017, we will not consider the documentation in this proceeding. 
In letters supporting the petition, the references discussed the Petitioner's previous research but did 
not demonstrate how such work qualifies the Petitioner for being well positioned to advance his 
endeavor. 6 For exampleJ lstated that the Petitioner's "PhD dissertation has veiy 
interesting ideas that have potential bearing and influence to 1h e o ~ ind us:;• (nd " [ lhe Petitioner] is 
working with me to develop a neaj I design." Althoug discussed the potential 
of the ideas in the dissertation and indicated work on developing esign, he did not establish 
that the ideas or designs have been implemented in the field, representing a record of success or 
progress rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
Similarly, ..__ _________ ~indicated that the Petitioner "explored how pressure inside a 
pressurized vessel decreases with time when a compressible fluid is released through an exit valve 
from the interior," and "we were able to construct a general methodology for experiment detennination 
of loss coefficient in a wide range of systems under different thermodynamic conditions."~ 
I I did not show whether this research has been utilized or applied in the field beyond stating 
that "we are preparing a manuscript describing our findings in a research article to be submitted in a 
journal." I I did not show how the Petitioner's work has served as an impetus for 
progress or generated positive discourse in the field, or otherwise signifies a record of success in the 
field. 
Likewise,! I stated that he reviewed one of the Petitioner's research articles relating to 
"comprehensive combination of theoretical, experimental and numerical studies" and his "team is 
considering [ the Petitioner's] study for potentially becoming part of future..__ ________ ___. 
I I of technology and tool design development." Although he asserts the possibility of 
5 In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner also offered six "[r]ecent publications and 
manuscripts submitted as evidenceofhis current research"; however, the record does not reflect that the manuscripts were 
actually published, let alonepublished prior to the filing of the petition. 
6 Although we discuss a sampling ofletters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
incorporating the technology atthe company, he did not demonstrate howthe potential use of the study 
at a business reflects the Petitioner's history of success in the field. 
," and the Petitioner "designed an excellent'----------------" model 
.__to_a_c-cu_r_a-te_l_y_s-im_.ulate the I Is, which was then scientifically validated and 
successfully determined to generate results with matching within industrially acceptable accuracy." 
However, the letter does not provide specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's work has 
affected the field or otherwise constitutes a record of success. 
The record also contains a letter fromc=J, Office of Research Commercialization stating that the 
Petitioner "is listed as an inventor on the 
~----2016," and'.___ ..... is currentlymarketingthetechnology." Notwithstanding the absence 
of a patent issuance or approval, a patent recognizes the originality of an invention but does not 
necessarily show its application in the field. Besides~'s attempt to market the technology, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated the significance of this innovation in the field, representing a record 
of success rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
As it relates to the citation of his published articles and conference presentations, the Petitioner initially 
provided a self-compiled document claiming that three of his materials have been cited 11 times (3 -
SPE Artificial Lift Conference & Exhibition, 1 - Journal of Petroleum Science Engineering, 7 -
URTec Unconventional Recourses Technology Conference). In the RFE response, the Petitioner 
submitted information from Google Scholar indicating that his materials have been cited 2 7 times with 
at least 7 citations occurring in publications after he filed his petition. However, the Petitioner has not 
shown that the number of citations received by his three works or the level of interest they generated 
is sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his endeavor. 
As it pertains to the Petitioner's education, while his degrees render him eligible for the underlying 
EB-2 visa classification, he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are 
sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. We look to a 
variety of factors in determining whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed 
endeavor and education is merely one factor among many that may contribute to such a finding. 
Regarding his peer review activity, the Petitioner provided evidence reflecting his service on editorial 
boards for journals, such as Petroleum and Environmental and Biotechnology and Petroleum and 
Petrochemical Engineering Journal. However, the Petitioner did not further explain the extent of his 
service, the prestigious nature of these journals, and how such service constitutes a record of success 
in his field or that it is otherwise an indication that he is well positioned to advance his research endeavor. 
Similarly, the record contains documentation of his memberships with professional associations, such as 
the Society of Petroleum Engineers and the American Rock Mechanics Association. The record does 
not include evidence demonstrating the significance or level of distinction of these memberships in 
his field. Nor has the Petitioner established that his memberships are sufficient to show a record of 
success in his research or a level of interest in his work from relevant parties signifying that he is well 
positioned to advance his research. 
5 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has published research, but he has not shown that this work 
renders him well positioned to advance his proposed research. While we recognize that research must 
add information to the pool of knowledge in some way in order to be accepted for publication, 
presentation, funding, or academic credit, not every individual who has perfom1ed original research 
will be found to be well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. Rather, we examine the factors 
set forth in Dhanasar to determine whether, for instance, the individual's progress towards achieving 
the goals of the proposed research, record of success in similar efforts, or generation of interest among 
relevant parties supports such a finding. Id. at 890. The Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently 
demonstrated that his published work has served as an impetus for progress in the field or that it has 
generated substantial positive discourse in the industry. Nor does the evidence othe1wise show that 
his work constitutes a record of success or progress in advancing research relating to artificial lift 
technology. 
Because the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his 
proposed endeavor, he has not established that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Further analysis of his eligibility under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would seive 
no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framewmk, we 
conclude that he has not demonstrated that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6