Date of Decision: June 8, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Petroleum Engineer
Field: Engineering, specializing in petroleum
Nationality: [Nationality not specified in provided text]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner has participated as a judge of the work of others in the same or allied field.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner has authored scholarly articles in the field, published in professional or major trade publications.
- Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner has performed in leading roles, including as Head of the Department of Operation of Liquefied Natural Gas and Head of the Department of Navigation Safety and Quality Management Systems for a subsidiary of his home country’s largest independent producer of natural gas.
Criteria Not Met:
- Membership in Associations: The Petitioner claimed membership in associations that require outstanding achievements but did not sufficiently demonstrate that these associations require such achievements.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate original contributions of major significance to the field.
- High Remuneration: The Petitioner did not adequately establish that they received a high salary or remuneration in comparison to others in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of Findings:
The Petitioner provided evidence of their company’s distinguished reputation, including an extensive list of prizes and awards won by the company from 2005 to 2022.
Key Quotes or References:
“The Petitioner submits detailed descriptions of the duties he performed in these positions as well as detailed, credible, and probative letters of support confirming and describing those leading roles in meaningful detail.”
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of Findings:
The Petitioner provided articles and publications where their work has been discussed, indicating recognition in the field.
Key Quotes or References:
Not specified in the provided text.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of Findings:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance.
Key Quotes or References:
Not specified in the provided text.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of Findings:
The Petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others in their field, which was recognized as meeting the criterion.
Key Quotes or References:
“The Director decided that the Petitioner met the evidentiary criteria relating to judging the work of others in the same or allied field.”
Membership in Associations:
Summary of Findings:
The Petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to establish that their memberships in associations required outstanding achievements.
Key Quotes or References:
Not specified in the provided text.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of Findings:
The Petitioner has authored scholarly articles, which were recognized as meeting the criterion.
Key Quotes or References:
“The Director decided that the Petitioner met the evidentiary criteria relating to authorship of scholarly articles.”
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of Findings:
The Petitioner held leading roles in distinguished organizations, which was recognized as meeting the criterion.
Key Quotes or References:
“The credible evidence provided on appeal sufficiently demonstrates that, more likely than not, the Petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation.”
Supporting Documentation
- Detailed descriptions of duties performed in leading roles
- Letters of support confirming and describing leading roles
- Documentation of the company’s awards and reputation
- Publications and articles authored by the Petitioner
Conclusion
Final Determination: Remanded for final merits determination
Reasoning:
The Petitioner has met the initial evidentiary criteria required but needs a final merits determination to analyze the totality of accomplishments and establish extraordinary ability.
Next Steps:
The Director must undertake a final merits determination to weigh the totality of evidence and determine if the Petitioner has demonstrated extraordinary ability in their field.
