dismissed EB-1A Case: Drilling Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6349607 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 29, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a managed pressure drilling engineer, seeks classification as an alien 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 
satisfied only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien 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 alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
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 sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories 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 first 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). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates that he has worked for.__ ______ ----.---,, in vario}1s capacities since 
2002, including his current employment as a drilling engineering team leader with L I 
'-----------' located inl ITexas. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner met only one of the evidentiary 
criteria relating to high salary at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). The record reflects that the Petitioner 
commands a high salary from his employment with BP. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that 
the Petitioner fulfilled the high salary criterion. 
Further, we find that the Petitioner participated in judging abstracts for a conference, satisfying the 
judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). In addition, the record reflects that the Petitioner 
authored two scholarly articles published in professional publications, meeting the scholarly articles 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Because the Petitioner has shown that he satisfies three criteria, 
we will evaluate the totality of the evidence in the context of the final merits determination below. 1 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 13 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing that objectively meeting the regulatory 
criteria in part one alone does not establish that an individual meets the requirements for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability under section 203(b )( I )(A) of the Act). 
2 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim, 2 
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 his 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-
20. 3 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner received his bachelor's degree in electrical power and machines 
engineering froml I University in 2001. In addition, he obtained a postgraduate diploma in 
petroleum engineering froml !university in 2015. Moreover, as indicated above, the 
Petitioner has been employed b~ in several capacities beginning in 2002. Specifically, he served 
in Egypt as a drilling engineer, night wellsite leader, senior drilling engineer, functional performance 
manager, and engineering team leader. Since 2014,Oemployed him as an engineering team leader 
and drilling engineering team leader in its I I located inl I Texas. As mentioned above, the 
Petitioner judged abstracts for a conference, authored two scholarly articles, and commands a high 
salary. The record, however, does not demonstrate that his achievements reflect a "career of acclaimed 
work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
Relating 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. 4 The record 
reflects that the Petitioner participated in ranking abstracts in 2017 for a conference. 5 However, the 
Petitioner did not establish that this single instance places him among the small percentage at the very 
top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). He did not show, for example, how his limited abstract 
or paper selection experience compares to others at the very top of the field. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that this one judging event, occurring approximately 
one year from filing his petition, contributes to a finding that he has a career of acclaimed work in the 
field or indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 
and section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. The Petitioner did not establish, for instance, that he garnered 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 14 (stating that such acclaim must be maintained and 
providing Black's Law Dictiona,y 's definition of"sustain" as to supp01t or maintain, especially over a long period of time, 
and to persist in making an eff01t over a long period of time). 
3 Id. at 4 (instructing that USCIS officers should then evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in its 
entirety to determine if the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expe1iise 
of the immigrant classification). 
4 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 13 (stating that an individual's participation should be 
evaluated to determine whether it was indicative of being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
5 On appeal, the Petitioner provides evidence listing him as a participant at a paper selection meeting for an upcoming 
conference in 2019; however, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he actually participated in judging the abstracts or 
papers. 
3 
wide attention from the field based on his work ranking abstracts for a conference. Moreover, serving 
on a conference abstract committee or in the peer review process does not automatically demonstrate 
that an individual has extraordinary ability and sustained national or international acclaim at the very 
top of his field. Without evidence that sets him apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he 
has a consistent history of completing a substantial number of review requests relative to others, served 
in editorial positions for distinguished journals or publications, or chaired technical committees for 
reputable conferences, the Petitioner has not shown that his peer review 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). 
Likewise, authorship and publication do not automatically place one at the top of the field. 6 The record 
reflects that the Petitioner authored two papers in 2012. However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that his publication record of two papers over seven years ago is consistent with having a career of 
acclaimed work and sustaining national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for 
aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more 
extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 
(July 5, 1991). Here, the Petitioner did not establish that his authorships reflect being among the small 
percentage at the very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner, for instance, did 
not show the significance of his authorship of two articles or how his publications compare to others 
who are viewed to be at the very top of the field. 
Moreover, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of his written work can be an indicator 
to determine the impact and recognition that his publications have had on the field and whether such 
influence has been sustained. For example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by 
the Petitioner may provide solid evidence that his work has been recognized and that other managed 
pressure drilling engineers have been influenced by his work. Such an analysis at the final merits 
determination stage is appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. 
The Petitioner provided evidence indicating that his onepetro.org article has been downloaded 
hundreds of times. While the downloads may show that his article was at least read or reviewed, he 
did not establish the importance or relevance of the figures. Specifically, he did not demonstrate that 
such download numbers sufficiently demonstrate a level of interest in the field commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim or represent attention at a level consistent with being among 
small percentage at the very top of his field. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
Likewise, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his drillingcontractor.org article garnered him any 
national or international acclaim. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. He did not submit citatory 
documentation or other evidence consistent with a very high standard requiring the petitioner to 
present more extensive documentation than that required for lesser classifications. See 56 Fed. Reg. 
6 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 13 (providing that publications should be evaluated to 
determine whether they were indicative of being one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
4 
at 30704. Further, the Petitioner did not show that the field has been influenced by his article or that 
it has somehow impacted the field in a significant manner. 
Moreover, the Petitioner submitted evidence showing that he commands a high salary fromD 
Although he documented his earnings, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 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 compare his wages to others who are viewed 
to be among the very top of his field of endeavor, as well as how his salary differentiated from others 
at Din similar positions. WhileOpays him a high salary, the Petitioner did not establish that he 
earns a level of compensation commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. See 
section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not show that he received notoriety 
or attention based on his earnings. 
Beyond the three criteria that the Petitioner satisfied, we consider additional documentation in the 
record in order to determine whether the totality of the evidence demonstrates eligibility. Here, for 
the reasons discussed below, we find that the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner has 
sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage of the top of his field. 
The Petitioner provided evidence reflecting his involvement in the International Association of 
Drilling Contractors/American Petroleum Institute's Underbalanced Operations/Managed Pressure 
Drilling Committee. In addition, the Petitioner served on American Bureau of Shipping's Offshore 
Equipment Advisory Committee. Although the Petitioner drafted documents regarding industry 
practices and attended meetings, he did not demonstrate that his participation with these committees 
was somehow remarkable or garnered sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. For instance, he did not submit evidence of widespread media coverage 
resulting in significant attention for his associations or professional accomplishments with the 
committees. Moreover, he did not establish that his memberships with these committees reflected that 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Regarding published material, the Petitioner offered a single 2017 article posted on worldoil.com. The 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that being quoted in one published piece is consistent with the sustained 
national or international acclaim necessary for this highly restrictive classification. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Further, the Petitioner did not show that his overall press coverage reflects a 
level of success consistent with being 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). In addition, the Petitioner did not establish that the 
limited media reporting reflects a career of acclaimed work in the field or a very high standard of 
presenting more extensive documentation than that required. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and 56 Fed. 
Reg. at 30704. 
The Petitioner presented evidence of his involvement in projects withQ his development of training 
materials and manuals forD and his performance appraisals fromD Moreover, the Petitioner 
provided recommended letters that summarized his work and contributions. The letters, however, do 
not contain sufficient information and explanation to show that the Petitioner is viewed by the overall 
field, rather than by a solicited few, as being among that small percentage at the very top of the field 
of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Further, the Petitioner did not establish that he has made 
impactful or influential contributions in the greater field reflecting a career of acclaimed work in the 
5 
field, garnering the required sustained national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. In fact, the Petitioner submitted reference letters that contained 
identical language, which raise questions regarding their authenticity; and therefore, lack probative 
value. 7 Here, the letters describe his work on projects with Owithout showing how they rise to a 
level of major significance in the greater field and represent an individual who has garnered sustained 
national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
In addition, as mentioned above, the Petitioner has held various positions with D since 2002. 
However, the Petitioner did not establish that any of his roles were either leading or essential toD 
overall. Moreover, he did not demonstrate that his roles at a single company represents sustained 
national or international acclaim or a career of acclaimed work in the field. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) 
of the Act and H.R. Rep. No. at 59. While the Petitioner's reference letters indicated his professional 
accomplishments, they did not show how his roles resulted in widespread acclaim from his field, that 
he drew significant attention from the greater field, or that overall field considers him to be at the very 
top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Here, the Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, 
intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing 
toward the top. Even major league level athletes do not automatically meet the statutory standards for 
classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). While the Petitioner need not establish that there is no one more accomplished 
to qualify for the classification sought, we find the record insufficient to demonstrate that he has 
sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of his field. 
See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7 See letters from I I and I l who also speculated on the possibility of the Petitioner's work 
having an impact at some point in the future, such as ·'[m]any of the contributions that [the Petitioner] and has team 
provided to this project will be used in similar projects for years to come." 
6