Date of Decision: June 22, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Reservoir Management Team Lead
Field: Petroleum Reservoir Engineering
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner satisfied this criterion by demonstrating his leading role at his employer, [company name redacted].
High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner provided evidence of a high salary compared to others in his field.
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner served on the [committee name redacted], selecting technical papers for publication, which meets the judging criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Awards and Prizes: The petitioner received an “Excellence Award” from 2012-2014, but did not demonstrate that these awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field.
Membership in Associations: The petitioner claimed membership in professional associations but did not provide evidence that these memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Published Material: The petitioner provided internal company documents but did not establish that these were published materials in professional or major trade publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner submitted letters praising his contributions, but the evidence did not demonstrate that these contributions had a major impact on the broader field of petroleum reservoir engineering.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner’s presentations and technical papers were not shown to be scholarly in nature or published in major trade publications.
Commercial Successes: Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: The petitioner did not provide evidence of nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: The petitioner provided internal documents and presentations but did not demonstrate that these were published in professional or major trade publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The letters from colleagues and evidence of citations did not sufficiently demonstrate that the petitioner’s contributions were of major significance. The recommendations praised his contributions to his employers but did not show significant influence on the broader field.
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner served as a reviewer for technical papers, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations: The petitioner’s claimed memberships did not meet the criterion of requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner’s work-related publications were not demonstrated to be scholarly articles published in major media.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: The petitioner demonstrated a leading role in his company, fulfilling this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner demonstrated a high salary compared to others in his field, meeting this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Supporting Documentation
The documentation included letters from colleagues and organizations, certificates of appreciation, evidence of judging technical papers, and high salary records. However, much of the evidence did not meet the necessary criteria to demonstrate extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria. While the petitioner satisfied the criteria for leading or critical role, high salary, and judging, the totality of the evidence did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of individual achievements and acclaim within the field, focusing on personal awards, critical reviews, and documented contributions of major significance to strengthen future petitions.
