dismissed EB-1A Case: Drilling Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 22, 2024 In Re: 35432503 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an engineering executive, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This 
first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
satisfied the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. We dismissed the 
Petitioner's appeal, and the matter is now before us on a service motion to reopen pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(5).1 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 
203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the [ noncitizen] has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field 
through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the [ noncitizen] seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the [noncitizen's] entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
1 Following the issuance of our decision, we issued a service motion reopening the application pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.S(a)(S)(ii) and requesting additional evidence in support of the Petitioner 's eligibility. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate recognition 
of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then they must provide sufficient 
qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media, and 
scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is fust counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The Petitioner claims to be an expert in drilling engineering, with specific emphasis on well 
completion for oil and gas exploration and production. He intends to continue his work in this field 
in the United States. Because the Petitioner has not claimed or established that he has received a 
major, internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory 
criteria at C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidentiary 
criteria, of which he must meet at least three. In dismissing the Petitioner 's appeal, we affirmed the 
Director's determination that the Petitioner had not established that he meets the requirements of at 
least three criteria. 
In September 2024, we reopened the matter on a service motion and allowed the Petitioner to 
supplement the record with assertions or evidence in support of his claimed eligibility. The Petitioner 
submitted a brief and additional evidence in response to our service motion. 
III. ANALYSIS 
In our previous decision, incorporated herein, we agreed with the Director's determination that the 
Petitioner met the plain language requirements of two evidentiary criteria relating to leading or critical 
role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and high salary at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). We further agreed 
with the Director's determination that the Petitioner had not met the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) related to memberships (ii), published materials (iii), judging (iv), and original 
2 
contributions (v). We further declined to consider the Petitioner's initial assertion that he also met the 
authorship criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), as he did not raise this issue on appeal.2 
Upon review of the Petitioner's submissions in response to our service motion, the evidence 
demonstrates his service as a judge of the work of others in the same or allied field of specialization 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). As the Petitioner therefore meets the requirements of at least three 
criteria and has satisfied the initial evidence requirements, we will consider all the evidence of record 
when conducting the final merits determination. 
Below, we will evaluate whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
his sustained national or international acclaim and that he is one of the small percentage at the very 
top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments 
and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their successes are sufficient to demonstrate that 
they have extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. 3 In this matter, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
The Petitioner, an executive in the energy industry, holds a bachelor's degree m mechanical 
engineering from thel Ias 
well as a master's degree in financial management from I I 
I I He began his career in India in 1981 working in drilling operations where he coordinated 
drilling rigs on offshore projects, and oversaw one of the first horizontal drilling projects in India in 
1987. Over the years, he held numerous engineering and managerial positions for companies within 
the energy field. At the time of filing, he was employed as the executive vice president of completions 
for a Texas company focused on manufacturing specialized oil and gas 
components such as eliminators, igniters, power charges, and setting tools. 
During his career, the Petitioner served in a leading or critical role for various organizations, judged 
others in the field, and commanded a high salary for his work. He also served as a board member for 
a drilling engineers association, had his work acknowledged in technical publications, and made 
notable contributions to his field. The record, however, does not demonstrate that his personal and 
professional achievements rise to a level of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated 
by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner has held high-ranking positions in the energy industry for 
various I I companies in addition to his current position as executive vice president of 
completions for ________ While the Petitioner established that he has held leading 
2 An issue not raised on appeal is waived. See, e.g., Matter ofO-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) ( citing Matter 
of R A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). The Petitioner also clarified that his claim to meet this criterion had 
been submitted in error. 
3 Meeting the initial criteria, however, does not establish a presumption of eligibility. The purpose of the final merits 
determination is to evaluate the quality of the evidence submitted to meet the criteria and to determine whether the record, 
as a whole, supports approval of the petition. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
3 
roles in organizations with a distinguished reputation, the record does not demonstrate how this has 
led to sustained national or international acclaim or placed him at the very top of his field. 
The record contains letters from numerous I I executives commending the Petitioner's work and 
accomplishments for the company.4 For example, a letter froml ICEO ofl I 
congratulated the Petitioner on his progress on safety in the company's Canada business unit and 
expressed his satisfaction with the progress made in drilling performance. I I president 
of acknowledged in an email message the Petitioner's achievement of one 
year without recordable safety incidents in 2016 as a result of policy changes he implemented. 
______ vice president of health, safety and environment, similarly acknowledged the 
Petitioner's achievement of one year of incident-free drilling operations at various locations due to his 
safety and performance improvements. Generally, the letters attest to the Petitioner's internal 
leadership in shaping accountabilities in health and safety, which is deemed crucial to the company's 
operations. While this demonstrates that the Petitioner held leading and critical roles within the 
I !organization, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's role in ensuring these health 
and safety procedures is commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim and that he is 
one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) 
of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)-(3). 
With respect to the Petitioner's original contributions in the field, he submitted testimonial letters from 
former colleagues at I Ias well as opinion letters in support of his assertion that he is an expert 
in the industry. A letter from I I a general manager of strategy and training atl I 
noted that the Petitioner "was able to reduce safety incidents to zero during his tenure" by 
implementing novel accountability measures, "improved drilling efficiency in Venezuela and 
Argentina" and "implemented programs to improve organizational capabilities and to prepare the 
workforce to take on challenging technical and management assignments across the world." 
I I who served as the Petitioner's supervisor when he worked for the company in Canada, 
again affirmed the Petitioner's history of success in minimizing safety incidents, noting that during 
his first year running drilling and completions, the Petitioner "reduced the number of [safety] incidents 
from 13 to zero" through changes he implemented in agreements with service providers . 
___ stated that as a team leader for rock mechanics, the Petitioner's leadership on the team's 
projects "helped to reduce risks related to uncertainties in subsurface rock mechanics, ultimately 
reducing the company's capital expenditure on drilling and completions" and also discussed process 
improvements and drilling efficiencies implemented by the Petitioner, stating that he was involved in 
the development of "unique assurance program for well control." I I
I I vice president and global account director for I I also recounted the Petitioner's 
process improvements and drilling efficiencies, claiming that the Petitioner's "overarching 
accomplishment has been to deliver large drilling projects around the world effectively, timely, under 
budget, and perhaps most importantly, safely," and that his "innovative approach was unique in my 
experience, and rarely is this level of collaboration found in the oilfield." Similarly,! J 
a retired general manager for a I I business venture in Argentina, recounted working with the 
Petitioner over the course of his career and reiterated the Petitioner's accomplishments in drilling 
efficiencies as well as cost and safety improvements. I I president and CEO of 
4 While we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
stated that the Petitioner's drilling initiatives "saved I lover $1 million 
USD per well in completion costs" and that the Petitioner "has shown initiative to create a safer and 
more compliant workspace for his colleagues and his professionalism is at the highest level I have 
seen." 
While these letters from the Petitioner's former colleagues at I I highlight the importance and 
value of the Petitioner's contributions to safety and drilling protocols and efficiencies, and attest to the 
novelty and utility of the Petitioner's contributions and innovations, they do not establish that his 
contributions have been recognized at a level that elevates him to the top of his field or that they have 
resulted in his sustained national or international acclaim. It is generally expected that one whose 
accomplishments have garnered sustained national or international acclaim would have received 
recognition for their accomplishments well beyond the circle of their personal and professional 
acquaintances. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(3), https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual. Although the letters from the Petitioner's former colleagues reflect the novelty of his work, 
they do not sufficiently articulate how his safety and drilling efficiencies have been considered of such 
importance and how their impact on the field rises to the level of major significance required by this 
criterion. 
The Petitioner also submitted an opinion letter from I I general counsel for ____ 
who summarized the above declarations of the Petitioner's I I colleagues and concluded that, 
based on his "over 30 years of legal and merger acquisition expertise in the energy industry," the 
Petitioner has made "business contributions of major significance in the field." Again, while we 
acknowledge the Petitioner's innovations in safety and drilling efficiencies, the record does not show 
how the Petitioner's work has been widely implemented or has otherwise impacted the field of oil and 
gas or fields directly related to advancements in drilling engineering methodologies, and therefore 
falls short of demonstrating that his achievements have been recognized in the field or that his level 
of expertise places him among the small percentage at the very top of his field. While the letters from 
hisl Icolleagues commend the Petitioner's skills and knowledge, they do not state the specific 
ways in which his work has received national or international recognition. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated how his work for his employers sets him apart from others or how his roles reflected or 
resulted in his sustained national or international acclaim in the field. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that his contributions are of major significance to the field or that such contributions 
resulted in the Petitioner "having achieved sustained acclaim as one of the very top of the field of 
endeavor." 
The record also contains a letter from President and COO of II I Mr. I I who stated that he worked closely with the Petitioner through his 
company's contract association withl Ipraised his "novel technical limits concept approach to 
rig contracts." He further claimed that this approach facilitated a collaborative platform between oil 
and gas companies and drilling contractors, thus resulting in a "win-win" situation for both companies 
that resulted in efficiencies and cost savings. However, Mr.I ldid not sufficiently detail in what 
ways the Petitioner's innovations have earned him national or international acclaim. While he 
generally claims that the Petitioner's technical limits concept helped provide cost-driven solutions to 
oil and gas companies, the record does not show that these innovations have earned him national or 
international acclaim in his field or show that he is at the top of his field. 
5 
In response to our service motion, the Petitioner asserts that the Petitioner's contributions to the field 
have "mitigated the risk of major compromise and accidents in oil and gas exploration and production 
activities," and claims that the submitted letters from industry experts have meticulously described his 
contributions and were erroneously disregarded. The Petitioner also submits additional evidence to 
further support this assertion, including an opinion letter from an economist, as well 
as numerous articles and publications discussing the importance of safety measures and protocols in 
the oil and gas industry. 
Mr. I I provides an "economic impact analysis" of the Petitioner, and states that he has 
performed a "qualitative evaluation of [the Petitioner's] economic contributions to the United States 
using generally accepted econometric methodologies." According to Mr. I Ia review of the 
Petitioner's taxable income using the INPLAN, an econometric software program, reveals that 64 
non-direct jobs were created in the United States based on his remuneration, and additionally generated 
$1.7 million in federal taxes. Mr. I I concludes that these jobs constitute significant 
contributions to the national economy based on their productivity, and further stimulate substantial 
amounts of taxes. Although the Petitioner's remuneration may have indirectly contributed to the 
creation of jobs and the generation of taxes, Mr. I Ianalysis does not sufficiently support a 
finding that the Petitioner's "economic impact" rises to the level of national or international acclaim 
or that he has risen to the very top of his field as a result of this claimed impact. 
In response to the service motion, the Petitioner also submits articles and reports regarding the 
importance of safety measures in the industry and emphasizes that the oil and gas industry "is known 
for its high risks and volatility" and that "safety is the actual prerequisite to the stability and prosperity 
of the oil and gas industry." The Petitioner asserts that the safety measures he implemented 
demonstrate his quantifiable economic impact and the positive economic effects that have resulted 
from his innovations. While we acknowledge the importance of safety protocols in the oil and gas 
industry and the Petitioner's contributions to such protocols over the course of his career, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that his contributions were reflective of, or resulted in, widespread acclaim from 
his field or that he is considered to be at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner did not establish that he garnered acclaim or extensive recognition from 
the field based on his contributions to safety protocols in the oil and gas industry, representing 
sustained national or international acclaim or a "career of acclaimed work in the field." See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59. 
The Petitioner submitted technical publications and asserted that they contained "advancements and 
findings made by [his] team of top-level researchers and scientists." The Petitioner also submitted 
copies of papers which he asserted were written by his team members and presented at conferences. 
While we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions that the technical publications and papers contain 
information about advances in his field as put forth by his team, the submitted documentation does not 
discuss the merits of the Petitioner's work, his standing in the field, any significant impact that his work 
has had on the field, or any other information to show that these advancements and findings received 
significant attention such that they are commensurate with those among the top of his field. 
The Petitioner also highlights his position as a board member for the American Association of Drilling 
Engineers (AADE) and the fact that he served on the steering committee of the association's Emerging 
Technology Group from September 2006 to December 2008. The Petitioner claims that membership in 
6 
AADE and its steering committees is comprised of "professional members ... who represent the top of 
their professions." Although the record reflects that the Petitioner's board position and membership on 
the AADE's steering committee is notable in that it is "based on merit and industry experience," the 
record does not demonstrate that board positions or steering committee membership is reserved only for 
those AADE members who have achieved acclaim at the national or international level or is otherwise 
indicative of their standing at the very top of the field. 
As it pertains to the Petitioner's service as a judge of the work of others, an evaluation of the 
significance of his experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence indicates the required 
extraordinary ability for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121-22. The 
Petitioner presented evidence showing that as a member of I I Global Drilling and 
Completions Leadership Team and Personal Development Committee, "he reviewed the work of the 
entire Drilling and Completions workforce around the world (totaling thousands of members)." The 
Petitioner further asserted that he conducted performance reviews of the teams in the regions where 
he served as a manager, conducted annual performance appraisals, hired new employees, and selected 
individuals for promotion. 
Additionally, the Petitioner presented evidence that he oversaw and judged the work of his 
subordinates on the 19-member Rock Mechanics Team, nominated a subordinate as a I !Fellow, 
and indicated that as executive vice president of completions for I Ihe is 
currently "responsible for judging the work of others on a regular basis, as he constantly reviews the 
work of other engineers to promote a safer and more streamlined environment for the company and 
its customers." 
The Petitioner did not establish that the nature of these evaluations contribute to a finding that he has 
a career of acclaimed work in the field or are indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. He did 
not show, for example, how his experience in evaluating subordinate engineers compares to others at 
the very top of the field. Similarly, the record does not show that the Petitioner has received any 
international recognition for conducting these evaluations. Without this or other evidence 
differentiating him from others in his field, such as evidence that he has a consistent history of 
reviewing or judging recognized, acclaimed engineers or experts in his field, the Petitioner has not 
shown that his judging experience places him among that small percentage who has risen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Finally, although the record reflects the Petitioner's earned income in various positions between 2013 
to 2022, the record does not establish that he commanded earnings commensurate with sustained 
national or international acclaim. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. The Petitioner did not show 
that his wages are tantamount to an individual who is among that small percentage at the very top of 
the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). For example, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
how his salary compared to others at the very top of his field, or that he received notoriety or attention 
based on his earnings separating himself from others in the field or placing him in the upper echelon. 
The Petitioner has not provided information that establishes his earnings are reflective "of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
7 
In summary, the Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals 
already at the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. U.S. 
Citizenship and immigration Services (USCIS) has long held that even athletes performing at the 
major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter ofPrice, 20 
I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, although the Petitioner has shown that he intends 
to continue working in his area of expertise and his entry will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States, he has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" 
as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59; see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered national or 
international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage at very top of the field of 
endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
IV. 0-1 NONIMMIGRANT STATUS 
The record reflects the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for nonimmigrants of 
extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed 
on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant 
visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, and case law. 
Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. 
See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of 
Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41(2d. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, our authority over the USCIS 
service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable to the 
relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has 
approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding 
in the adjudication of another immigration petition. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-
2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
V. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8