PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
MotionNational Interest Waiver · Motion to reopen

Petroleum engineer

Engineering · decided 2020-10-16 · TSC · OCT162020_04B5203

Official PDF on uscis.gov

How each part of the test was decided

Read from the appeals office's own sentences by fixed rules, not from the Director's findings or the petitioner's arguments. Each result shows the sentence it came from. The official PDF controls.

  • Step 0Eligible for EB-2Not decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 1Merit and national importanceNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 2Well positioned to advance itNot met
    Why
    Accordingly, they do not show that his work has generated interest or positive discourse in his field at a level that renders him well positioned to advance his proposed research. that will study the feasibility ofusing brine from CO2 storage sites to produce fresh water. 2 p. 2
  • Prong 3Worth waiving the job offerNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

The decision in brief

Sentences picked out of the text automatically. Read them in context below; the official PDF controls.

Summary sentence

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. See in text

What the AAO decided

  • We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal and two subsequent motions. See in text
  • Upon review, we will dismiss the motion. See in text
  • ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. See in text

Main reasons given

  • In our previous decision, we determined that the Petitioner had not sufficiently demonstrated that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor and therefore he did not meet the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. See in text
  • Accordingly, they do not show that his work has generated interest or positive discourse in his field at a level that renders him well positioned to advance his proposed research. that will study the feasibility ofusing brine from CO2 storage sites to produce fresh water. See in text
  • We further indicated that he had not provided comparative statistics indicating how often other petroleum engineering researchers are cited, nor otherwise demonstrated that his published and presented research constitutes a record of success or a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong. See in text
Show 3 more
  • Finally, we concluded that while the White House Fact Sheet and the article from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) both helped show the substantial merit and national importance ofthe Petitioner's proposed work under Dhanasar's first prong, they did not relate to whether he is well positioned to advance his proposed research. See in text
  • In addition, we explained that while the downloads of the Petitioner's articles corroborate that he has disseminated his findings, they are not sufficient to demonstrate that his work has been influential among petroleum engineering researchers, has served as an impetus for progress or generated positive discourse in the field, or otherwise represents a record of success or progress rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed research. See in text
  • The letters from the Petitioner's coworkers at Weatherford International do not provide specific examples of how his work has affected the oil and gas industry, has served as an impetus for progress or generated positive discourse in his field, or otherwise represents a record of success or progress rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed carbon sequestration research. See in text
Read the full decision (3 pages)

Objections found (4)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

  • Prong 2Support letters generic or unsupported
    The Petitioner's motion does not include new information or evidence that overcomes the grounds underlying our previous decision and that renders him eligible under the second prong o f the Dhanasar analytical framework. 1 The letters from the Petitioner's coworkers at Weatherford International do not provide specific examples of how his work has affected the oil and gas industry, has served as an impetus for progress or generated positive discourse in his field, or otherwise represents a record of success or progress rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed carbon sequestration r… See in text (p. 2)
  • Prong 2Past record does not show influence or success
    The Petitioner's motion does not include new information or evidence that overcomes the grounds underlying our previous decision and that renders him eligible under the second prong o f the Dhanasar analytical framework. 1 The letters from the Petitioner's coworkers at Weatherford International do not provide specific examples of how his work has affected the oil and gas industry, has served as an impetus for progress or generated positive discourse in his field, or otherwise represents a record of success or progress rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed carbon sequestration r… p. 2
  • Prong 2Citation record not persuasive
    Furthermore, we determined that the Petitioner's self-compiled list of citations lacked probative value and did not demonstrate citations to his work by others in the field . See in text (p. 2)
  • ProcedureNot eligible at the time of filing
    In discussing the evidence offered in support of the second motion, our previous decision stated that the Petitioner's published and presented work, workshop participation, and invitations requesting his manuscripts and editorial services all post-dated the filing of the petition. See in text (p. 1)

Full decision

OCR text from the official PDF, reformatted for reading. Scan errors carry over; the PDF controls.

Highlighted: Outcome (3) AAO finding (6) Tagged objection (3)Matter of X citation
Decision header
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · In Re: 9442557 · Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision · Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office · Date: OCT. 16, 2020 · Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National Interest Waiver)

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. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal and two subsequent motions. The matter is now before us on a third motion to reopen.

In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion.

Law

A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence ofnew facts. The requirements ofa motion to reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit.

Analysis

In our previous decision, we determined that the Petitioner had not sufficiently demonstrated that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor and therefore he did not meet the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.

In discussing the evidence offered in support of the second motion, our previous decision stated that the Petitioner's published and presented work, workshop participation, and invitations requesting his manuscripts and editorial services all post-dated the filing of the petition.Not eligible at the time of filing In addition, we explained that while the downloads of the Petitioner's articles corroborate that he has disseminated his findings, they are not sufficient to demonstrate that his work has been influential among petroleum engineering p. 2 researchers, has served as an impetus for progress or generated positive discourse in the field, or otherwise represents a record of success or progress rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed research. Furthermore, we determined that the Petitioner's self-compiled list of citations lacked probative value and did not demonstrate citations to his work by others in the field .Citation record not persuasive We further indicated that he had not provided comparative statistics indicating how often other petroleum engineering researchers are cited, nor otherwise demonstrated that his published and presented research constitutes a record of success or a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong. Finally, we concluded that while the White House Fact Sheet and the article from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) both helped show the substantial merit and national importance ofthe Petitioner's proposed work under Dhanasar's first prong, they did not relate to whether he is well positioned to advance his proposed research.

With the present motion, the Petitioner does not offer new facts or evidence relevant to our aforementioned findings. Instead, the Petitioner submits a November 2012,...1.......................,. I !offering him "the position of Reservoir Engineer, located in TX." He also presents a December 2019 letter verifying his employment w ith ---------~ from November 2012 until August 2015. Additionally, the Petitioner offers three letters of support from his former coworkers atl Idiscussing his work experience and projects at the 1 company.

His motion also includes certificates indicating that he has completed courses in "CO2 sequestration with GEM," "Schlumberger Information Solutions - Petrel Introduction," "Chemical EOR using STARS & CMOST," "Reservoir Geomechanics," and "MOOC Oil and Gas - From Exploration to Distribution."

Furthermore, as documentation that his work has generated interest and positive discourse in the field, the Petitioner presents articles discussing carbon capture, the production of water from saline aquifers through carbon dioxide capture and storage operations, pre-injection brine production in CO2 storage reservoirs, brine management for geologic carbon sequestration, the enhancement of CO2 storage capacity with brine production, and the DOE's selection of five projects While the Petitioner has offered new evidence with the present motion, this documentation does not relate to our discussion of the evidence for the prior motion. The Petitioner's motion does not include new information or evidence that overcomes the grounds underlying our previous decision and that renders him eligible under the second prong o f the Dhanasar analytical framework.Support letters generic or unsupported

The letters from the Petitioner's coworkers at Weatherford International do not provide specific examples of how his work has affected the oil and gas industry, has served as an impetus for progress or generated positive discourse in his field, or otherwise represents a record of success or progress rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed carbon sequestration research.

While these certificates indicate that the Petitioner has received training in his specialty, the record does not show that this training renders him well positioned to advance his proposed research 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.

These articles do not identify the Petitioner or include a discussion of the significance of his work. Accordingly, they do not show that his work has generated interest or positive discourse in his field at a level that renders him well positioned to advance his proposed research. that will study the feasibility ofusing brine from CO2 storage sites to produce fresh water.

Conclusion

As the Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our previous decision that would warrant reopening of the proceedings, we have no basis for reopening of our decision, and his underlying petition remains denied. He has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.

ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.