NIW Bearings
dismissedJAN122016_01B52032016-01-12 · appeal · Texas Service Center

This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.

The Petitioner worked as a global operations training and competency advisor in the oil and gas industry, focused on human resource management systems, staffing, competency development, and safety practices for a multinational oil and gas employer.

Field: oil and gas / human resources management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; this was not contested on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established · dispositive

“the petitioner seeking the waiver must show that he will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications.”
“A petitioner must exhibit a past history of achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole.”
“there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that they are indicative of the Petitioner's impact on the field of human resources management or the oil and gas production industry as a whole.”
“Any assertion that a petitioner possesses useful skills, or a "unique background" relates to whether similarly-trained workers are available in the United States and is an issue under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process.”
“The inapplicability or unavailability of a labor certification, however, cannot be viewed as sufficient cause for a national interest waiver”
“Generalized conclusory assertions that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in the field have little probative value.”
“the record does not establish that the Petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole or that he will otherwise serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that his work has affected practices throughout the oil and gas industry or has otherwise influenced the field as a whole”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “there is nothing inherent in the Petitioner's managerial training to establish his eligibility for the national interest waiver”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    “there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that they are indicative of the Petitioner's impact on the field”
    AAO decision text
  • awards · discounted
    “there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that they are indicative of the Petitioner's impact on the field of human resources management or the oil and gas production industry as a whole”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “eligibility must be established at the time of filing”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Letters conclusory · p3 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Letters not independent · p3 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p3 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
  • Record of success insufficient · p3 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
  • U.S. worker availability · p3 — the impracticality of a labour-market test was asserted, not established
838coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

Legacy NYSDOT case; Petitioner cited an unpublished AAO decision as precedent but failed to submit a copy, which AAO rejected as unsupported and non-binding regardless. AAO also declined to consider post-filing evidence (conference presentations, invitations) under Matter of Katigbak.

Authorities this decision leans on

From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.

  • 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.3(c)
  • Matter of Katigbak
  • Matter of Otiende
  • Matter of V-K-
  • Section 291 of the Act
  • Visinscaia v. Beers

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer