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.
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 p. 2 substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare ofthe United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States.
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i)Nationalinterestwaiver.... [T]heAttorneyGeneralmay,whentheAttorney 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 o f 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 , 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 foreignnationalproposestoundertake. Theendeavor'smeritmaybedemonstratedinarangeofareas 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.
Thesecondprongshiftsthefocusfromtheproposedendeavortotheforeignnational. Todetermine 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 UnitedStatestowaivetherequirementsofajobofferandthusofalaborcertification. Inperforming 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 ajob offer 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 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter ofNew York State Department ofTransportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT).
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). p. 3 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 The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanceddegree. TheremainingissuetobedeterminediswhetherthePetitionerhasestablishedthata waiver o f the requirement o f 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 ofthe Proposed Endeavor
The first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar,26I&NDec.at889. Inhisinitialcoverletter,thePetitionerclaimedthat"hisworkisdevoted to research and development oftechnology for producing oil and gas and is in the national interest ofUS 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 to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus ofa labor certification.
Analysis
The Petitioner provided reference letters discussing the importance of artificial lift operation costs." 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 ofthe 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 a r e o n s o m e f 0 1 m o f a i i i f i c i a l l i f t f o r e n h a n c e d p r o d u c t i o n " ! I, a n d " [ m ] o s t o f t h e w e l l s in the U.S. produce from unconventional reservoirs" and "[t]he rapid decline rates in unconventional r e s o u r c e s n e c e s s i t a t e a r t i f i c i a l l i f t m u c h s o o n e r i n t h e l i f e o f t h e w e l l , o f t e n w i t h i n m o n f u s a f t e r t h e 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 ofhis proposed endeavor. Accordingly, the Petitioner satisfied the first prong o f 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 SeeDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, forelaboration onthesethreeprongs. 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,fromaproductionwell. Generally,thisisachievedbytheuseofamechanicaldeviceinsidethe 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 flowingwellstoincreasetheflowrateabovewhatwouldflownaturally. Theproducedfluidcanbeoi~ water or a mix of oil and water. typically mixed with some amount ofgas. Essentially, anyliquid- producingreservoirwillhavea 'reservoirpressure'- somelevelofenergyorpotential-thatwillfoice fluid (liquid, gas or both)to areas oflowerenergy orpotential.
I
I
Idid 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 Idid 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.Past record does not show influence or success
Likewise,! Istated 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[thePetitioner's]studyforpotentiallybecomingpartoffuture..___ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____.
Iof technology and tool design development." Although he asserts the possibility of 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 alonepublishedpriorto the filing ofthe petition.
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~ Iin the I lsince
September20I7~oximately one month after receiving his doctorate degree. According to his curriculumvitae,l__Jemployshimasaresearchassistant. However,thePetitionerhasnotshownthat the remaining time in his temporary position is sufficient to render him well positioned to advance his proposedendeavor. Onap:eal thePetitionersubmitsanOctober2019jobletterfrortj I 11 engineer manager atl and discussed the Petitioner's roles, responsibilities, and achievements. In addition, the Petitioner offers 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.
For exampleJ lstated that the Petitioner's "PhD dissertation has veiy !indicating that the Petitioner "recently joined" the company two authored scholarly articles published in 2019, after he filed his petition. 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. interestingideas thathave potential bearingand influence to 1he o~indus:;•(nd "[lhe Petitioner] is working with me to develop a neaj Idesign." 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."~ Although we discuss a sampling ofletters, we have reviewed and considered each one.Support letters generic or unsupported
The Petitioner must establish p. 5 incorporatingthe technology atthe company, he did not demonstrate howthe potentialuse ofthe study at a business reflects the Petitioner's history of success in the field.
," and the Petitioner "designed an e x c e l l e n t ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " 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'.___.....iscurrentlymarketingthetechnology." Notwithstandingtheabsence of a patent issuance or approval, a patent recognizes the originality of an invention but does not necessarilyshowits applicationinthe field. Besides~'s attemptto marketthe 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 itrelatestothe citationofhispublishedarticlesandconferencepresentations,thePetitionerinitially provided a self-compiled document claiming that three of his materials have been cited 11 times (3 - SPE Artificial Lift Conference & Exhibition, 1 - Journal ofPetroleum 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 27 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 PetrochemicalEngineeringJournal. However,thePetitionerdidnotfurtherexplaintheextentofhis 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 o f 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 ofinterest in his work from relevant parties signifying that he is well positioned to advance his research.
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 ofsuccess in similar efforts, or generation ofinterest 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,thePetitionerhasnotdemonstratedeligibilityforanationalinterestwaiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would seive no meaningful purpose.
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.