Date of Decision: December 22, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Mechanical Engineering and Drilling and Wells Engineering
Petitioner Information
Profession: Drilling Engineer
Field: Drilling and Wells Engineering
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Substantial Merit: The petitioner’s endeavor in drilling and wells engineering was found to have substantial merit due to its potential impact on the oil and gas industry.
Qualification: The petitioner was deemed to qualify as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Criteria Not Met:
National Importance: The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his specific endeavor had national importance, as the evidence did not sufficiently show a broad potential prospective impact on the U.S. economy or job creation.
Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to prove that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor at a national level.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to continue his career in drilling and wells engineering, focusing on technological advancements in data acquisition and optimization, and improving the performance of mature reservoirs.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the petitioner’s work in drilling and wells engineering was recognized for its substantial merit, it did not meet the national importance criterion. The evidence provided did not establish that his work would have a broad impact on the U.S. economy or the oil and gas industry on a national scale.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that waiving the labor certification requirements would benefit the U.S. The potential economic impact and job creation attributed to his work were not adequately supported by evidence.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided letters of recommendation and opinion letters highlighting his achievements and the importance of his work. However, these letters did not sufficiently explain the broader implications of his proposed endeavor or its national importance.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner failed to provide a clear and specific description of his proposed endeavor’s broader impact, leading to inconsistencies in evaluating the national importance of his work.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
The letters did not convincingly articulate the national impact or specific benefits of the petitioner’s proposed work in the drilling and wells engineering field.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
The advisory letters highlighted the petitioner’s achievements but lacked detailed explanations of the national importance of his proposed endeavor.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, as his proposed endeavor did not demonstrate national importance. The evidence provided was insufficient to support the claims of substantial economic impact and job creation at a national level.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
