Date of Decision: August 18, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Oil and Gas Specialist
Field: Oil and Gas Industry
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Participating as a Judge of the Work of Others: The Petitioner provided evidence of serving as a judge for the work of others in the field.
- Publishing Scholarly Articles: Evidence submitted met the criterion for publishing scholarly articles.
Criteria Not Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance in the Field: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance at the time of filing.
- Lead or Critical Role for Organizations or Establishments with Distinguished Reputations: The Petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion based on the provided evidence.
- High Salary or Other Significantly High Remuneration in Relation to Others in the Field: The Petitioner’s salary was not sufficiently high to meet this criterion.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: (if applicable)
No significant awards or prizes were presented that met the criteria for demonstrating extraordinary ability.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: (if applicable)
The Petitioner provided analytics and statistics about his publications, but they did not sufficiently demonstrate influence or impact within the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: (if applicable)
The Petitioner’s publications and speaking invitations postdated the filing of the petition and could not establish initial eligibility.
Participation as a Judge: (if applicable)
Evidence was provided that the Petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others, which was recognized as meeting the relevant criterion.
Membership in Associations: (if applicable)
No specific associations were cited that demonstrated extraordinary ability through sustained membership.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: (if applicable)
The Petitioner submitted evidence of publishing scholarly articles, which was accepted as meeting one of the criteria.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: (if applicable)
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish a leading or critical role within distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: (if applicable)
Not applicable to the Petitioner’s field.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: (if applicable)
The Petitioner’s salary data did not meet the criterion for high salary in relation to others in the field of oil and gas engineering.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: (if applicable)
Not applicable to the Petitioner’s field.
Supporting Documentation
- Academia.edu Readership Analytics: Provided viewership statistics but did not sufficiently demonstrate significant influence in the field.
- Wage Data: Provided wage data for various engineering occupations, but the salary was not high enough to meet the required criteria.
- Support Letters: Included letters from colleagues and professionals, but they did not establish major impact or originality in contributions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider were both dismissed. The Petitioner did not meet the required criteria to establish eligibility for the extraordinary ability classification.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner’s additional evidence postdated the filing of the petition and did not establish initial eligibility. The salary comparisons did not demonstrate a significantly high remuneration within the field. The Petitioner also failed to provide evidence of a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations or original contributions of major significance.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence that demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim and reapply if new, substantial achievements are documented.
