dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Petroleum Engineering

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw~ted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
litmt1C COpy 
U.S. Department of Homeland 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 
DATE: MAY 0 2 2011 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: LIN 0812150696 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 c.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~ Perry Rhew 
/ Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The petitioner, an energy company, seeks to employ the beneficiary as a reservoir engineer/ 
petrophysicist. 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 
beneficiary 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 brief and supporting documents. 
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 did not dispute that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. 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. 
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, 101st Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
Page 3 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), 
published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (November 29, 1991), states: 
The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (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. 
Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Commr. 1998), has set forth 
several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. First, 
it must be shown that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Next, it must 
be shown that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. 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 minimum qualifications. 
It must be noted that, while the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, it clearly 
must be established that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national 
interest. The petitioner's subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest 
cannot suffice to establish prospective national benefit. The inclusion of the term "prospective" is used 
here to require future contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no 
demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely 
speculative. 
The AAO also notes that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a 
degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" 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 petition on March 14, 2008. In an introductory letter, the 
petitioner's in-house attorney described the beneficiary's roles in the petitioner's 
efforts: 
[The petitioner] is one of the largest producers of oil and gas in the United States .... 
The [petitioner's] largest Alaskan ... project, Prudhoe Bay is a major potential 
energy resource for the country. 
Page 4 
Projections estimate that Prudhoe Bay contains more than 25 billion barrels of oil, 13 
billion of which may be recovered with currently existing technologies .... 
However, original recovery efforts began in Prudhoe Bay in 1977 and in recent years, 
as the field has matured and oil has been extracted, production in the region has 
declined. As a result, [the petitioner] is relying on developing new and innovative 
methods for maximizing production in the region through production optimization 
technologies . . . to recover previously unexplored natural resources in an 
economically viable manner. ... 
In her role as a Reservoir Engineer and Petrophysicist, [the beneficiary's] work is 
instrumental in determining with precision where oil and gas reserves are located and 
how to best recover such reserves .... 
[The beneficiary] is directly contributing to the U.S. economy through her innovative 
and groundbreaking work at Prudhoe Bay, which will increase available oil and gas 
reserves in the United States, while reducing the associated recovery costs. As such, 
[the beneficiary's] exceptional contributions to the field of production optimization 
include: 
• Development of a Novel Cost-Benefit Analysis Method Used [in] 
Determining the Cost of Petrophysical Data Recovery: ... The model 
. . . has found applications in related field activities, such [as] . . . oil 
refining operations .... The model has been applied in maintaining 
lengthy and stable field operations. 
• Discovery and Implementation of a Novel Reservoir Characterization 
Model to Accurately Model Rock Architecture: ... The model allows 
reservoir engineers to develop a better understanding of where oil and gas 
deposits are found in complex geological terrain and also the best path for 
extracting such reserves from the well. 
• Creation of a Systematic Tight Gas Carbonate Evaluation Model: 
Tight gas reservoirs refer to reservoirs where the rock is not highly 
permeable and liquid extraction is particularly difficult. . . . [The 
beneficiary] developed a mode[l] that more accurately depicts the 
geological terrain in such reservoirs, facilitating the recovery of oil and 
gas deposits in an economically feasible way. 
• Utilization of Fluid Substitution Innovation in Accurately Modeling 
Rock Architecture: In developing a better recoverable seismic image 
from low porosity environments, [the beneficiary] has implemented fluid 
substitution models, and improved such models, in mapping undeveloped 
Page 5 
and mature oil fields in an attempt to recover accurate geological data and 
plan for optimal recovery from such regions. 
• Integration of Existing Log Formation Models in Generating a Highly 
Accurate Novel Method for Reservoir Evaluation: . . . [The 
beneficiary] was able to improve the reservoir engineer's ability to 
evaluate recoverable reserves in low-resistivity formations or thin-bed 
formations, which historically had presented global challenges in 
identifying and recovering oil and gas reserves. 
Thus, [the beneficiary's] technological innovations and their practical field 
applications are paving the way for companies such as [the petitioner] to develop 
natural resources more efficiently in areas of vital import to the nation such as the 
complex tundra of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Unlocking such resources is key to meeting 
U.S. energy demands, as Prudhoe Bay has unmatched energy potential within this 
country. 
(Footnotes omitted.) The substantial intrinsic merit and national scope of the beneficiary's 
occupation are not in dispu~eding. At issue is the extent of the petitioner's individual 
contributions to her field. _claimed: "the oil and natural gas industry recognizes the 
significance of [the beneficiary's] innovative work rather than simply the importance of her field," 
and that the beneficiary "has influenced the oil and natural gas field as a whole .... [T]here are but a 
handful of qualified individuals in the world who can match her performance." To support these 
claims, the petitioner submitted various exhibits. Some of these exhibits simply demonstrate the 
beneficiary's professional credentials, which the AAO does not question, but which do not self­
evidently establish her impact or influence on her field. 
stated that exhibit 18 documents "various awards and honors given to [the 
beneficiary] in her professional capacity as an engineer." Exhibit 18 consists of six Chinese­
language documents with no certified English translations as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3). The AAO cannot determine whether the petitioner accurately described these 
documents. 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 
(Commr. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Commr. 
1972)). 
The petitioner submitted copies of two papers. Neither paper showed any internal evidence of 
publication. For instance, neither paper identified any journal or publication at the top or bottom 
page margins, and the page numbers of both documents start at "1," rather than at higher numbers 
that would indicate their extraction from a longer work. The petitioner identified one paper, 
"Modeling Reservoir Architecture Using a Simple Pattern Index Number Based on Moment of 
Inertia," as the beneficiary's master's thesis. The petitioner referred to the paper as a "publication" 
but did not provide any details about who published it, or when. 
Page 6 
The petitioner claimed that the second paper, "CostlBenefit Analysis of Petrophysical Data 
Acquisition," "was selected for oral presentation in the 43rd Annual SPWLA conference." (SPWLA 
stands for Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts.) identified exhibit 20 as 
"a program for [the beneficiary's] upcoming speaking engagement at a professional lecture series." 
Exhibit 20 is a partial schedule for the SPWLA 2008 symposium, which lists the beneficiary's name 
beside the title "CostlBenefit Analysis of Petrophysical Data Acquisition." 
The symposium schedule says nothing about a "speaking engagement" or "oral presentation" by the 
beneficiary. The document lists a number of presentations, by other researchers, at 20-minute 
intervals, showing the time of each presentation followed by the word "Oral," but the beneficiary's 
presentation is not one of these. Rather, the beneficiary's presentation is one of several marked 
"Poster" rather than "Oral," with no corresponding time. Therefore, the evidence indicates that 
beneficiary's presentation was a poster presentation, despite the petitioner's repeated references to 
an "oral presentation" and "speaking engagement." The petitioner did not explain why a research 
paper from 2001 apparently took seven years to reach the academic community before appearing at a 
2008 conference. 
The petitioner also submitted abstracts of other theses and papers that the beneficiary co-wrote 
during the 1990s. The petitioner identified two articles said to contain references to the beneficiary's 
work, but the petitioner did not substantiate that claim by submitting copies of those articles. The 
petitioner's mislabeling of the beneficiary's poster presentation demonstrates that the petitioner's 
claims and descriptions are not necessarily accurate. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's 
proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered 
in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ro, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). It is incumbent 
upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence, 
and attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, absent competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice. [d. at 582, 591-92. 
The petitioner submitted several witness letters. of the University of Alaska 
provided the shortest letter, stating that the beneficiary's academic and professional background 
"makes [the beneficiary] specialized. Her skills in well-log interpretation, seismic rock properties 
knowledge, and application of specialized reservoir software experience make [the beneficiary] an 
outstanding researcher for reservoir engineering and development." 
"the Europe, Africa, Russia, and Caspian (EARC) Region Petrophysical Advisor for 
" stated: 
I have not personally met [the beneficiary] since December 2003 when she left 
Aberdeen [Scotland], but I am well aware of her groundbreaking contributions to the 
field of petrophysics and reservoir engineering .... 
Page 7 
[The beneficiary's] work at the is of particular interest and 
significance in the industry, as during her time at the university, [the beneficiary] 
developed multi-disciplinary approaches to oil and gas resource development and 
recovery that have shaped the industry in many positive ways. For example, [the 
beneficiary] led a research project at the school that focused on the costlbenefit 
analysis of petrophysical data acquisition .... The resulting model accounted for 
variables that previously were very difficult to work with in providing better data 
regarding the formation net pay in any complex geographic region. Formation net 
pay . . . refers to the maximum rock thickness that may be encountered while still 
maintaining a profitable hydrocarbon recovery mission. Thus, improving the 
reliability of such data has proven critical in the success of various oil and gas 
recovery efforts, including those currently being undertaken by [the petitioner] .... 
[The beneficiary] has developed a method of reservoir characterization using the 
concept of moment of inertia based on Newton's law of physics to most accurately 
characterize the spaces found in various reservoirs and the connectivity properties 
within the reservoirs .... Through [the beneficiary's] model ... improved images of 
available reserves in the complex regions were generated and used to recover oil in 
such challenging environments as the Ivishak and Kurparuk Reservoirs in Prudhoe 
Bay. 
Another significant contribution ... [was] her development of a model for accurately 
imaging reservoirs where tight gas carbonate deposits may be located . . . such that 
additional reserves that were previously thought to be beyond reach may be 
recovered. The concept has already been applied with success in Prudhoe Bay's 
Lisbum Formation .... 
Maintaining a competitive edge in the oil and gas industry is critical to [the 
petitioner], and as such, the direct economic benefits of [the beneficiary's] continued 
contributions to [the petitioner] are essential in maintaining their competitive edge. 
The AAO notes that it is not a matter of national interest for the petitioner to maintain a "competitive 
edge" over competing United States companies. (The AAO further notes that the petitioner is a 
subsidiary of a parent company based in the United Kingdom.) 
a petrophysical consultant for the petitioner in Prudhoe Bay, claimed that the 
beneficiary's "work is truly exceptional and places her among the top petrophysicists in the world," 
but, like other witnesses, did not identify any site using the beneficiary's methods apart from 
"several reservoirs in Prudhoe Bay." 
president of the SPWLA and a senior petrophysicist with the petitioning entity, 
stated: 
Page 8 
I am well aware of [the beneficiary's] contributions to our scientific community based 
on my active role within SPWLA and I have been very impressed by her research as 
she has demonstrated the distinct ability to innovate the field. For instance, [the 
beneficiary] developed a clearly defined process for performing a cost benefit 
analysis of the data acquired in petrophysical exploration .... It is unique in assessing 
the value of crucial technical data in economic terms and therefore promotes 
transparent and effective decision making . 
. . . [The beneficiary's] contributions to petrophysical analysis are invaluable to 
recovery efforts at Prudhoe Bay, to [the petitioner], and to the United States as a 
whole, as her work allows for more accurate estimation of recoverable reserves by 
eliminating uncertainties commonly encountered with traditional petrophysical data 
acquisition methods .... 
In addition, [the beneficiary] has continued her pioneering and innovative research in 
the field, in developing unique and novel methods for reservoir characterization. 
Through use of a well-known inertia-based concept grounded in Newton's law, [the 
beneficiary] developed a model to accurately characterize spatial connectivity in the 
rock architecture within the oil reservoir in order to determine what diverse 
characteristics are present in the reservoir, the permeability properties of the rock, and 
liquid flow patterns of any petrochemical deposits. 
_ did not identify any sites other than Prudhoe Bay where the beneficiary's models are in 
use, or any companies other than the petitioner that use the model at all. Rather, he stated that the 
beneficiary's "work has presented an appreciable benefit of great value to the active exploration 
efforts currently occurring at Prudhoe Bay's Ivishak and Kuparuk reservoirs" and "will likely be 
applied in developing the Sag River reservoir," also at Prudhoe Bay. 
Two of the initial witnesses are go'vernrrlen petroleum land manager for 
the 
My assessment and evaluation of [the beneficiary's] work and achievements are 
based on technical knowledge of her accomplishments alone. I have been duly 
impressed with her publication record, her educational credentials, her employment 
history, and her distinctive innovations throughout the field of petrophysics. 
Accordingly, it is my professional opinion that [the beneficiary's] accomplishments 
in the oil and gas industry, and specifically her discoveries that have been applied at 
Prudhoe Bay, are outstanding and worthy of a national interest waiver. 
Specificall y, [the beneficiary's] work with tight gas carbonate reservoir 
characterization has led to significant improvements in the identification and 
development of import<l;nt national gas reserves, particularly in the Prudhoe Bay 
Field .... The [beneficiary's] model ... provides highly accurate data on how much 
Page 9 
gas IS contained III various rock formations and where the gas is found in the 
reservoir. ... 
[The beneficiary] has also revolutionized the oil and gas recovery efforts in areas like 
Prudhoe Bay where complex geology presents special challenges through her special 
methodology of analyzing rock properties. Specifically, during her doctoral studies, 
[the beneficiary] employed a method called fluid substitution which ... proves to be 
very useful in identifying available oil and gas reserves in particularly challenging 
geographical environments. . . . As a result of her use of this method, fluid 
substitution has become a common practice in rock property studies, playing a crucial 
role in obtaining better seismic images for reservoir management. The use of fluid 
substitution represents a major breakthrough .... 
As evidenced by these developments, [the beneficiary] has repeatedly demonstrated 
her unique and significant value in oil and gas recovery efforts, playing a critical role 
as an innovator in the industry. 
[The beneficiary] is contributing to optimized oil and gas recovery efforts in one of 
the United States' most significant and productive oil fields .... 
My evaluation of [the beneficiary] is based on my own expertise in the field of 
petroleum engineering and conversations I've had with both [the beneficiary] and 
colleagues in the oil and gas industry. I can say with confidence that [the 
beneficiary's] work has had considerable impact on the areas of reserve identification 
and production optimization in the field of oil and gas recovery .... 
One of [the beneficiary's] significant pioneering breakthroughs occurred in her use of 
electro-chemical analysis of low-resistivity and thin-bedded formation reservoir 
regions .... In innovating existing models designed to account for such variables, [the 
beneficiary] developed a new shaly sand model that employed electro-chemical 
properties and principals [sic] in most accurately creating an image of the terrain 
where low-resistivity or thin-bed formations exist. [The beneficiary's] model has 
been employed in Prudhoe Bay in increasing the lives of what were previously 
thought to be mature oil fields .... 
Additionally, [the beneficiary] has contributed significantly to production 
optImIzation in Prudhoe Bay through her innovative approaches to reservoir 
characterization. . . . [The beneficiary] is improving the production of reservoirs that 
were thought to have generated all recoverable oil and gas reserves. 
Page 10 
~ claimed that the beneficiary's "work is being used effectively in the oilfields of Prudhoe 
Bay, Alaska and also throughout the· " but every specific example he offered related to 
Prudhoe Bay. _ then echoed letter, by stating that the petitioner "is a 
leader in the energy industry. However, in order to maintain its position in the market, it is critical 
that [the petitioner] optimizes the efficiency of its operations." It is far from clear why the Bureau of 
Land Management would take a direct interest in one oil company's ability "to maintain its position 
in the market." 
On May 21, 2009, the director requested additional evidence, including documentation of citation of 
the beneficiary's published work and "documentary evidence to establish that the beneficiary has a 
past record of specific prior achievement that justifies projections of future benefit to the national 
interest." The director stated that the petitioner "must demonstrate, to some degree, the beneficiary's 
influence on the field of employment as a whole." 
In response, the petitioner did not submit any citation evidence at all. stated: 
"citations of the Beneficiary's published papers are not the only type of documentary evidence that 
can demonstrate the influence that a Beneficiary wields in the field of endeavour. Publications and 
citations of the published papers are sometimes not applicable or available if the Beneficiary's 
profession does not require publication." These statements are certainly true, as far as 
Nevertheless, in this particular instance, the petitioner had previously submitted what 
called "selected publications written by" the beneficiary, the petitioner had identified specific 
articles that, the petitioner claimed, cited her work. Because the petitioner had already claimed that 
the beneficiary is a published and cited author, it is irrelevant that some beneficiaries are not 
published and cited authors. The issue is not the absence of citations as such. Rather, the petitioner 
made specific claims about citation of the beneficiary's work, but failed or refused to provide that 
evidence upon request. Failure to submit requested evidence which precludes a material line of 
inquiry shall be grounds for denying the application or petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
The petitioner submitted copies of several conference presentations by the beneficiary. One of them 
is the beneficiary's 2001 paper, "CostlBenefit Analysis of Petrophysical Data Acquisition," modified 
for presentation at the 2008 SPWLA conference mentioned earlier. Most of the other presentations 
date from 2001 and earlier; some are in Chinese. The petitioner also submitted materials showing 
that the beneficiary participated in a presentation entitled "The Historical Development of Prudhoe 
Bay Petrophysical Models." It appears that this presentation was in preparation at the time the 
petitioner filed the petition in March 2008, and the presentation appeared at a 2009 conference. The 
title and abstract of the article describe a historical overview, rather than a presentation of new data, 
findings, or methods. 
The director, in the request for evidence, did not request further witness letters or state that more 
letters ~en the petition. Nevertheless, the 's response contained four new 
letters. ___ president , and vice president of_ stated: 
Page 11 
[The beneficiary] has made seminal contributions to the oil and gas industry through 
the development of innovative approaches to oil and gas resource development and 
recovery that have shaped the industry's new focus on the economic assessments of 
petrophysical data acquisition in oil recovery efforts. She did this through her paper 
entitled "CostlBenefit Analysis of Petrophysical Data Acquisition." ... 
By demonstrating a systematic process that can be used to perform a costlbenefit 
analysis of the value of petrophysical data acquisition, [the beneficiary] 
fundamentally re-shaped how the industry assessed petrophysical data acquisition .... 
[The beneficiary] made a substantial impact in the oil industry . . . when she 
demonstrated how costibenefit analysis of petrophysical data acquisition can 
rejuvenate the industry's oil and gas recovery efforts by optimizing reservoir 
development and management. 
The record is devoid of documentary evidence of the paper's "substantial impact." If the 
beneficiary's work led directly to an increase in the number or quality of costlbenefit analyses, then 
documentation of those analyses presumably exists, but the petitioner did not provide any such 
evidence. 
former president of_, stated: 
One of the most important contributions that [the beneficiary] has made to the oil and 
gas industry is her work in developing and applying novel approaches to oil and gas 
resource development and recovery by shifting the oil industry's focus to 
costlbenefits analysis of petrophysical data acquisition in order to improve oil 
recovery efforts. [The beneficiary's] contributions on this topic are represented in her 
paper entitled, "Cost/Benefit Analysis of Petrophysical Data Acquisition," which was 
selected for publication ... in December 2007 for presentation in [SPWLA's] annual 
conference in May 2008. 
The paper is an excellent development of the methodology I have recommended in 
my textbook, Log Data Acquisition and Quality Control, first published in 1991. ... 
While the approach developed in my book was mostly theoretical, [the beneficiary] 
has applied it with rigor to specific case studies and expanded it to increase its 
applicability to the economics of oil & gas fields . 
. . . Her findings demonstrated a new and systematic approach to performing 
costlbenefit analysis of acquiring petrophysical data .... 
[The beneficiary's] work on the costlbenefit analysis of petrophysical data acquisition 
significantly influenced the oil industry by offering a concrete and systematic 
approach that enables oil companies to assess how much to cost cut the petrophysical 
Page 12 
data acquisition programs without compromIsmg the integrity of reservoir 
development efforts. 
The petitioner submitted no documentary evidence to establish the nature or extent of the 
beneficiary's claimed influence on the industry. letter suggests that the 
beneficiary's major achievement is essentially an adaptation own earlier work from 
1991. Also, the record amply shows that the paper discussed in the above letters dates from 2001, 
when the beneficiary was working at a university in Scotland. There is no evidence that the 
beneficiary's recent work for the petitioner is similar in style or substance to her academic work 
from nearly seven years before the 2008 filing date. 
The question also arises as to why the beneficiary's 2001 paper apparently sat unpublished and 
unpresented for about seven years before its appearance at the 2008 conference. The record does not 
show what attempts, if any, the beneficiary or her co-author made to disseminate the work before 
2008, nor does it explain the delay in its eventual appearance. Certainly the record does not show 
that the paper has all along earned recognition as the seminal work that the petitioner now claims it 
to be. 
In terms of whatever influence the paper may have had following its May 2008 presentation, the 
petitioner must establish that the beneficiary is eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing 
the petition. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(1). Therefore, subsequent events cannot cause a previously 
ineligible alien to become eligible after the filing date. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Regl. Commr. 1971). When the petitioner filed the petition in March 2008, the presentation had not 
happened yet; there was only the expectation that the beneficiary's seven-year-old paper would 
finally rise to prominence at the upcoming SPWLA conference. 
The last two letters are from officials of the petitioning company. a senior geologist 
for the petitioner at Greater Prudhoe Bay, claims that the beneficiary "has been instrumental in [the 
petitioner's] efforts to update and improve the Prudhoe Fullfield Model." He stated: 
[The beneficiary] has made substantial contributions to the oil and gas industry in 
Alaska and at Prudhoe Bay in particular. In leading petrophysical studies to support 
sustained oil and gas production and prolong Prudhoe field life, [the beneficiary's] 
contributions have had greater impact than those of other reservoir engineers in [the 
petitioning company] and in the industry as a whole. 
The principal example of the beneficiary's influence that_ cited was the beneficiary's new 
paper, "Historical Development of Prudhoe Bay Petrophysical Models." The petitioner did not 
mention this paper in the initial filing, and the petitioner's subsequent submissions indicate that the 
beneficiary completed the paper after the filing date. The same objection made above applies here 
as well - this accomplishment happened after the filing date, and therefore too late to establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility as of the filing date. Even then, this claimed achievement is subject to the 
same general objection that holds throughout this proceeding, specifically that the beneficiary is 
Page 13 
supposedly a highly influential figure in her field, but this claimed influence has left no trace other 
than witness letters written specifically to support the petition. 
In a lengthy, illustrated letter, 
___ iii stated: 
team leader of 
[The beneficiary] plays a critical role in our GPB Fieldwide Team as a Reservoir 
Engineer with unique expertise in petrophysics to evaluate the Enhanced Oil 
Recovery (EOR) process known as Miscible Injection that is used in the Greater 
Prudhoe Bay area .... 
[The beneficiary's] unique educational and work experience in both petrophysics and 
reservoir engineering render her exceptionally qualified to work on major reservoir 
formation evaluation projects for [the petitioner's] Prudhoe Bay field in Alaska. She 
has made significant contributions to [the petitioner's] efforts by applying new 
petrophysical models and analytical methodologies to help us determine the most 
prudent approach to increasing the recovery and subsequent production level of this 
area of the field. Since joining [the petitioner] in Alaska, [the beneficiary] has 
developed a new petrophysics interpretation model to solve the engineering 
challenges of monitoring water encroachment and in reducing the water and gas 
saturation uncertainties during water injection to extract hydrocarbons from maturing 
fields in Prudhoe Bay .... [S]he has substantially influenced the way the industry 
manages development and production at large reservoirs with aging production 
capacity. 
then discussed the beneficiary's work in technical detail, "to give context to ... how 
[the beneficiary] has significantly influenced the industry's efforts in this field," but the discussion 
fails to show adoption of the beneficiary's methods outside some of the petitioner's Prudhoe Bay 
facilities. 
described the expected outcome of the beneficiary's work: 
As a direct result of [the beneficiary's] contributions, [the petitioner] will have an 
improved reservoir model of Prudhoe with a better prediction of the volumes of 
remaining hydrocarbons and where they are located. Such predictions are critical for 
the development of depletion plans to increase recovery from this prolific and 
underdeveloped horizon at Prudhoe. The estimated recovery from this work will add 
an additional 100-300 million barrels of oil to the ultimate recovery of Prudhoe Bay. 
On average, this will increase production between 15,000 and 20,000 barrels of oil 
per day. In a field where average production is currently 300,000 barrels of oil per 
day and declining annually, an increase of production [of] approximately 6% is a 
substantial contribution to the US domestic oil reserve. The additional production 
Page 14 
will increase the economic viability of the Prudhoe field by approximately 10-15 
years using standard reserves to production ratios. 
The projections seem impressive, but the petitioner submitted no first-hand evidence to show that the 
beneficiary's work had actually increased yields at Prudhoe Bay or anywhere else. Furthermore, 
while provided estimates about the magnitude of improvements that the beneficiary 
may put in place, but he provided no basis to compare those figures with what could be expected 
from other qualified petroleum engineers. 
The director denied the petition on November 13, 2009, stating that the petitioner had failed to 
submit objective, documentary evidence to establish the beneficiary's impact on her field. The 
director noted that the petitioner submitted no evidence of citation of the beneficiary's work (but 
also acknowledged that citations are not the sole measure of impact). The director also noted that 
exceptional ability is not a presumptive basis for approving the national interest waiver. 
On appeal, the petitioner contends that the director applied "requirements for the national interest 
waiver that exceed and contradict the guidance of the AAO in NYSDOT ," for instance by requiring 
the petitioner to show that the beneficiary's "contributions ... not only meet the baseline 
requirements for exceptional ability but ... must go beyond this baseline requirement." The director 
did not require the petitioner to meet the specific regulatory standards of exceptional ability, as 
spelled out in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). The director, rather, correctly pointed out 
that, under section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act, a petitioner seeking to classify an alien as an alien of 
exceptional ability must show that the alien "will substantially benefit ... the United States." The same 
statute imposes the job offer requirement on that alien. Therefore, the substantial benefit that arises 
from exceptional ability obviously does not exempt a given alien from the job offer requirement. The 
national interest waiver is an additional benefit, over and above the underlying immigrant classification. 
It is therefore a matter of simple logic that an alien seeking a national interest waiver must offer a 
greater benefit than the substantial benefit intrinsic to exceptional ability. This is not the same as 
requiring the alien to meet the specific evidentiary requirements of exceptional ability. 
The petitioner argues that the director improperly required "independent, verifiable documentary 
evidence of the beneficiary's past experience normally expected of researchers when the record 
indicates that the Beneficiary is an engineer." It was the petitioner who first invited the comparison 
with a researcher by referring to the beneficiary as a published and cited author of scholarly articles. 
More importantly, while the specific nature of the evidence will vary from field to field, the notion of 
"independent, verifiable evidence" is not exclusive to researchers, and it is entirely appropriate to expect 
the petitioner to submit independent, verifiable evidence to support the petitioner's specific claims. 
The petitioner submits an excerpt from the Occupational Outlook Handbook from the U.S. 
Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. One passage reads, in part: 
Because only a small proportion of oil and gas in a reservoir flows out under natural 
forces, petroleum engineers develop and use enhanced recovery methods .... 
Page 15 
Because even the best techniques in use today recover only a portion of the oil and 
gas in a reservoir, petroleum engineers research and develop technology and methods 
to increase recovery and lower the cost of drilling and production operations. 
The above passage is enlightening because it shows that increasing the productivity of an oil well is 
not a rare achievement for a petroleum engineer. It is, rather, a basic component of a petroleum 
engineer's job description and an expected outcome of the petroleum engineer's work. For this 
reason, it cannot suffice for the petitioner (or witnesses) to state that the beneficiary's efforts 
increase the efficiency of recovery at a particular oil field. That is, literally, her job. The petitioner 
must, rather, show that the beneficiary stands out among other petroleum engineers who, like the 
petitioner, have the responsibility of improving production. Indeed, on appeal, the petitioner states 
"the benefit of her work should be measured by its tangible impact upon the oil and gas industry 
such as whether the work has been applied in the industry and the results of such application." 
The petitioner stated that the director failed to explain "the specific reasons why expert letters and other 
evidence in the record are insufficient" to meet evidentiary requirements. The "other evidence" 
submitted prior to the director's decision primarily concerns the beneficiary's academic and 
professional credentials, as well as background materials about the petitioner, the petroleum 
industry, and energy policy. The objective evidence of record did not support, or even address, 
witnesses' claims regarding the beneficiary's influence and impact. The most specific assertions 
regarding the beneficiary's work amount to speculation about future outcomes, rather than already­
documented results. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
(citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction 
of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered 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 (Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Id. 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. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting 
that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). USCIS may even give 
less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter of Sojfici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Commr. 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. Commr. 1972)). 
Page 16 
The AAO stresses that the above case law does not require USCIS to impeach the credibility of 
witnesses. Other factors, including lack of specificity or corroboration, can also diminish the weight 
of witness letters. For all the vague claims about the beneficiary's influence throughout the industry, 
the petitioner did not establish widespread use of the beneficiary's techniques. References to 
maintaining the petitioner's competitive advantage, along with a lack of evidence of any new 
publications after 2001 (apart from a historical review that looks back rather than forward), suggest 
that the beneficiary's work for the petitioner is proprietary, and not licensed or otherwise shared in a 
manner that would permit the beneficiary's work to influence the industry rather than her employer 
alone. The petitioner has not shown that anyone other than the petitioner is using the beneficiary's 
methods, or even that the petitioner is using the beneficiary's methods anywhere other than specific 
fields at Prudhoe Bay. 
The petitioner contends: "The objective evidence of the Beneficiary's 'past history of demonstrable 
achievement' is documented through her published papers and conference presentations." The 
petitioner acknowledges that the beneficiary's "number of publication[s] and citation record can be 
considered minimal," but does not explain how the beneficiary's published work self-evidently 
shows that she qualifies for the waiver. The petitioner suggests that the witness letters demonstrate 
the impact of the beneficiary's published work, but the witnesses for the most part discuss the 
beneficiary's recent work for the petitioning entity in the United States, several years after the 
beneficiary wrote her published and presented work in China and the United Kingdom. 
The petitioner submits screen-capture printouts from http://www.scholar.google.com. showing a 
handful of Chinese-language citations of some of the beneficiary's Chinese-language writings from 
the 1990s. The AAO repeats, here, that the petitioner claimed citations in the initial filing, but did 
not submit them at that time. The director then specifically requested evidence of the claimed 
citations. The petitioner could have submitted citation evidence at that time, but instead chose to 
downplay the importance of citations and submit other materials that the director had not requested. 
In doing so, the petitioner forfeited the opportunity to document the claimed citations. 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been 
given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the 
first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533,537 (BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence 
to be considered, it should have submitted the documents in response to the director's request for 
evidence. [d. The petitioner's belated submission of requested citation materials on appeal cannot 
show USCIS error in the denial notice, because the director correctly found that the record, at the 
time of the decision, lacked those materials. 
The AAO acknowledges the petitioner's submission of apparently independent witness letters 
attesting to the beneficiary'S impact and influence in her field. These claims, however, lack 
corroborating· evidence which ought to be readily available. The claims also lack detail, except 
when they concern not the industry as a whole but rather efforts at specific sites at one complex of 
oil fields. The value of a petroleum engineer in prolonging the useful life and increasing the 
Page 17 
productivity of oil fields is not in doubt. The petitioner, however, has not shown that it is in the 
national interest to ensure that this particular beneficiary be the petroleum engineer at the chosen 
Prudhoe Bay sites. It is possible that the beneficiary's methods will significantly improve 
production, but the record contains no data showing that this has been the case so far. The petitioner 
has not provided an objective comparison between the beneficiary and others in her field that would 
justify a waiver for the beneficiary in particular, rather than simply establish the overall importance 
of such engineers. 
As is clear from a plain reading of 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. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.