petroleum engineering
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: His endeavor will impact the field more broadly and have broader implications.
Evidence type: letters of recommendation
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“At best, his endeavor will make incremental impacts either to his employer or possibly in the field, and he has not explained how those are discernable to qualify under Dhanasar 's prong one requirements.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The work of safety personnel in the oil and gas industry is inherently of national importance.
Evidence type: general claim
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“But his focus on the importance ofthe industry is misplaced.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: His work is tied to an executive order relating to increasing American energy.
Evidence type: executive order
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“However, that executive order relating to increasing American energy was issued in 2025, which was after he filed the petition. As a result, he cannot rely on that executive order in this petition.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: His work ensures well designs and drilling execution are of the highest quality and meets industry and company standards, which in turn leads to increased efficiency, reduced costs, improved safety and less environmental harm.
Evidence type: letters of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“SCOPS decided the Petitioner's claims and evidence demonstrated his endeavor had substantial merit but fell short of establishing his proposed endeavor was nationally important under this prong.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
NOT_DISCUSSEDWhat this decision can’t tell you
This decision comes from a case that was denied and then appealed. Every case here is in that position — it cannot be used to estimate an overall approval rate, and it cannot predict the outcome of any individual case, including yours. USCIS officers exercise discretion on facts that are never fully captured in a written decision.
This decision turned on national importance. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.
Describe your situation →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- On Prong 1 (substantial merit & national importance), USCIS found the petitioner's letters of recommendation insufficient to establish that his endeavor will impact the field more broadly and have broader implications.. What would make comparable evidence in my own case more persuasive?
- What in my own case most resembles the specific facts USCIS focused on in this decision?
- Would additional expert-opinion evidence have changed the outcome here, based on what USCIS said was missing?