Date of Decision: April 19, 2016
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Oil and Gas Management
Petitioner Information
Profession: Oil and Gas Well Field Superintendent
Field: Oil and Gas Management
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: The Petitioner holds an advanced degree, qualifying her as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Criterion 2: The Petitioner demonstrated substantial merit in her proposed work in the oil and gas industry.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a broader impact of her work beyond her employer.
Criterion 2: The Petitioner did not establish a record of success or significant interest in her work from relevant parties, showing that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner seeks to continue her work as an oil and gas well field superintendent, focusing on managing and optimizing oil and gas field operations to improve efficiency and safety.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The proposed endeavor has substantial merit as it addresses critical issues in the oil and gas industry, aiming to improve operational efficiency and safety. However, the national importance of the endeavor was not sufficiently demonstrated to meet the required standard.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner provided letters from colleagues and independent professionals attesting to the significance of her achievements and her influence on the field. However, the content of those letters did not sufficiently demonstrate such influence without supporting documentation.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The primary issues were the lack of substantial evidence demonstrating the broader impact of the Petitioner’s work and the failure to establish a record of success or significant interest in her work from relevant parties. The Petitioner’s role in collaborative projects was not sufficiently detailed to show that she was well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Not applicable.
Business Plan: Not applicable.
Advisory Letter: Letters from colleagues and independent professionals attesting to the significance of the Petitioner’s work.
Any other supporting documentation: Employment records and details of the Petitioner’s contributions to the oil and gas industry.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not meet the requirement of demonstrating that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed work in the oil and gas industry. While her work has substantial merit, the evidence provided did not establish a record of success or significant interest from relevant parties. Additionally, the Petitioner did not show that her work would have a broader impact beyond her employer. Consequently, the Petitioner did not satisfy the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework, resulting in the denial of the petition.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
In Re: S-J-T-, APR192016_01B5203.pdf
