Date of Decision: November 22, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Engineering Executive
Field: Drilling Engineering and Oil and Gas Exploration
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner sought to demonstrate eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) by satisfying at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the petitioner met three criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of their field.
Criteria Met:
- Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
- The petitioner served as a member of a global drilling and completions leadership team, reviewed work within the field, and judged technical and performance standards for a drilling workforce.
- Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations:
- The petitioner held executive roles in prominent oil and gas companies, where he contributed to safety enhancements and process improvements, which were acknowledged by colleagues and leadership.
- High Salary or Remuneration:
- The petitioner submitted evidence of significant remuneration in the energy industry, reflective of his expertise and high-ranking roles.
Criteria Not Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- While the petitioner demonstrated improvements in safety protocols and drilling efficiency, these contributions were not shown to have significant field-wide recognition or acclaim.
- Membership in Associations Requiring Outstanding Achievements:
- Evidence of membership in the American Association of Drilling Engineers (AADE) did not demonstrate that membership required nationally or internationally recognized achievements.
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- Submitted technical publications and articles failed to establish the petitioner’s standing as a top individual in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Judging and Leadership Evidence:
- The petitioner demonstrated participation in evaluating and managing teams across multiple organizations. However, evidence of these activities did not establish extraordinary ability or acclaim.
High Salary Evidence:
- Remuneration was not shown to significantly distinguish the petitioner as one of the top in the field.
Contributions to Safety Protocols:
- Safety improvements and cost-saving measures were well-documented but did not meet the standard for extraordinary contributions of major significance to the field.
Final Merits Determination:
- The AAO concluded that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the very top individuals in the field of endeavor.
Supporting Documentation
Judging Evidence: Performance reviews and oversight of drilling workforce activities.
Leadership Evidence: Executive roles in major oil and gas companies, with documented contributions to safety and process improvements.
Remuneration Evidence: Earnings in executive positions, supported by employment records.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met three regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or status as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field.
