Date of Decision: March 7, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Engineering Executive
Field: Drilling Engineering (Oil and Gas Exploration and Production)
Nationality: [Nationality Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner demonstrated a leading or critical role in well-known organizations within the field.
- High Salary or Remuneration: Evident from compensation significantly higher than that of peers, suggesting recognition of the petitioner’s extraordinary abilities.
Criteria Not Met:
- Membership in Associations: Insufficient evidence to demonstrate that membership in the AADE was based on outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts.
- Published Materials About the Petitioner: None of the submitted materials specifically highlighted the petitioner’s contributions or achievements in the field.
- Participation as a Judge: The roles performed by the petitioner did not meet the strict criteria of judging the work of peers as required by USCIS, lacking formal acknowledgment as a judge.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The evidence failed to convincingly demonstrate that the petitioner’s contributions had a significant impact on the broader field of drilling engineering.
Key Points from the Decision
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: Although the petitioner claimed significant contributions to drilling efficiency and safety, the evidence provided did not demonstrate an industry-wide impact or recognition beyond his immediate professional circle.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters from colleagues and industry professionals praising the petitioner’s role and impact within their organizations.
- Documents and correspondence from the American Association of Drilling Engineers (AADE) and other professional involvements.
- Technical publications and presentations allegedly related to the petitioner’s work, though not explicitly highlighting his personal contributions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, with the AAO upholding the initial denial. The evidence provided was insufficient to meet the high standards required for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification, which is reserved for those who are at the very top of their field nationally or internationally.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he meets at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria definitively. The evidence did not sufficiently prove that his contributions, roles, or recognition reached the level of extraordinary ability as defined by USCIS regulations.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider other visa categories or gather more substantial evidence and reapply to better meet the criteria for extraordinary ability, focusing on clear demonstrations of industry-wide recognition and impact.
