Date of Decision: November 19, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Oil and Gas Well Field Management
Petitioner Information
Profession: Oil and Gas Well Field Superintendent
Field: Well Completion and Intervention
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: The petitioner established employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit.
The petitioner demonstrated that well completion and intervention are critical components of the oil and gas industry, contributing significantly to operational efficiency and safety.
Criterion 2: The petitioner established that the proposed benefit will be national in scope.
The petitioner’s initiatives, such as multi-well completions and water re-use systems, have been adopted across various states, indicating a broad impact on the industry.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: The petitioner failed to establish that her work significantly influences the field as a whole.
The supporting letters did not provide sufficient independent, objective evidence of industry-wide influence attributable to the petitioner’s specific contributions.
Criterion 2: The petitioner did not demonstrate that her influence in the field exceeds that of an available U.S. worker with similar qualifications.
The evidence presented was not convincing enough to show that the petitioner’s expertise and contributions are unmatched by any available U.S. worker.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to continue her work in well completion and intervention, focusing on operational efficiency, safety improvements, and cost management within the oil and gas industry.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s work has substantial merit due to its critical role in enhancing the efficiency and safety of oil and gas extraction processes. However, the decision noted that while the work is important, the petitioner’s individual contributions did not demonstrate a national impact.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided letters from colleagues and industry experts attesting to her expertise and the significance of her work. These letters highlighted achievements such as multi-well completions and water re-use initiatives.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The decision noted a lack of detailed, independent evidence supporting the petitioner’s claimed influence on the industry. The letters, while supportive, did not sufficiently establish the petitioner’s unique contributions or their widespread adoption.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
The petitioner included letters from colleagues and industry experts who emphasized her contributions to multi-well completions and water management systems. However, the letters lacked specific evidence of these contributions being adopted industry-wide.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
The petitioner submitted advisory letters that discussed her role in implementing safety and efficiency measures. These letters acknowledged her expertise but did not provide detailed, independent validation of her influence.
Any other supporting documentation:
Not applicable.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The decision emphasized that while the petitioner demonstrated substantial intrinsic merit and national scope of her work, she did not provide sufficient independent, objective evidence to prove her influence on the field as a whole. Additionally, she did not show that her contributions exceed those of an available U.S. worker with similar qualifications.
