Date of Decision: DEC. 9, 2022
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 Construction
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a judge of the work of others:
The petitioner met the requirements by providing evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others in their field.
Authorship of scholarly articles:
The petitioner satisfied this criterion by providing evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
Criteria Not Met:
Original contributions of major significance:
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that their contributions were of major significance to the field. The supporting letters did not provide sufficient corroborative evidence, and the claimed contributions were not shown to have a significant impact on the broader field.
Leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that they performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation. The documentation provided did not establish the organizations’ distinguished reputation or the significance of the petitioner’s roles.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration for services:
The petitioner did not establish that their salary was significantly high in relation to others in the field. The comparison to the construction manager profile in the Occupational Outlook Handbook was not adequately supported by detailed job descriptions or comparative analysis.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner did not provide documentation of any recognized awards or prizes that met the criteria for national or international recognition.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable, as this criterion was not claimed or evaluated in detail.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings:
The contributions claimed by the petitioner were not substantiated as being of major significance to their field. The letters provided did not adequately demonstrate the significant impact of the petitioner’s work on the industry as a whole.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner provided evidence of participation as a judge in their field, fulfilling this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable, as this criterion was not claimed or evaluated in detail.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner met this criterion by providing evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that they held a leading or critical role in organizations with a distinguished reputation. The evidence provided did not meet the required standards.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that their salary was significantly high in relation to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Judging Participation:
Evidence of the petitioner’s participation as a judge in their field. - Scholarly Articles:
Documentation of multiple scholarly articles authored by the petitioner. - Expert Letters:
Letters from experts claimed contributions but lacked detailed evidence of major significance. - Salary Comparison:
Inadequate comparison to the construction manager profile in the Occupational Outlook Handbook.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that fulfill at least three of the ten lesser criteria. The totality of the material provided did not support a conclusion that the petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. The evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of their field.
Next Steps:
It is recommended that the petitioner consider alternative visa classifications or provide additional evidence addressing the deficiencies noted in the appeal decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here.
