Date of Decision: April 29, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Managed Pressure Drilling Engineer
Field: Engineering
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
High Salary or Other Significantly High Remuneration: The Petitioner commands a high salary from his employment with BP.
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others: The Petitioner participated in judging abstracts for a conference.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored two scholarly articles published in professional publications.
Criteria Not Met
Sustained National or International Acclaim: The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. The achievements do not reflect a “career of acclaimed work in the field” as contemplated by Congress.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No evidence provided.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided a single article from 2017 on worldoil.com, which did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
No evidence provided.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner judged abstracts for a conference, satisfying this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
No evidence provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored two scholarly articles in reputable professional publications.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
No evidence provided.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner commands a high salary from BP, satisfying this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
No evidence provided.
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Publications: Provided but did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Letters from Colleagues and Organizations: Praised the Petitioner’s work but lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate the required level of acclaim.
Salary Documentation: Provided but did not establish that the Petitioner’s salary is indicative of sustained national or international acclaim.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner met the initial evidentiary criteria but did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. The record does not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification.
