dismissed EB-1A Case: Geology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11991701 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 29, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a senior exploration geologist , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b )(1 )(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 record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner meets at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for 
this classification. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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, the Petitioner has not met this burden . 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
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 pet1t10ner can demonstrate 
international 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 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 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is currently employed as a senior exploration geologist fo~._ __________ __. 
in Texas. 
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 Petitioner claims to meet five of these ten criteria, summarized 
below: 
• (iii), Published materials in professional publications or major media; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; 
• (viii), Leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation; and 
• (ix), High salary or other significantly high remuneration. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met one of these criteria, related to authorship of scholarly 
articles. The record supports this determination as the Petitioner has provided evidence that he 
authored articles published in academic journals and other professional publications. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Director overlooked evidence submitted in response to a request for evidence 
(RFE) which establishes that he meets all five claimed criteria. 
Upon review, we find sufficient evidence to establish that the Petitioner meets two additional criteria. 
First, the Petitioner established that he has served in critical roles for~s operations in Ukraine and 
Oman and has therefore satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The Petitioner provided 
detailed, credible letters from persons with direct knowledge of his duties and project outcomes, 
explaining why his performance in senior technical roles was critical to the outcome of the 
organization's I !exploration and I I operations in these markets. The submitted 
2 
evidence also establishes the distinguished reputation of O and the related entities that employed 
the Petitioner. 
In addition, we conclude that the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to establish that he 
commands a high salary from his current U.S. employer in relation to others in the same occupation 
and geographic area and has therefore satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). The Director 
determined that the Petitioner's stated annual salary was prospective since he had not yet been 
employed for a full year, despite his submission of bi-monthly pay statements froml I that 
corroborated his stated annual salary. The Director also did not acknowledge the Petitioner's 
submission of data from a Department of Labor source establishing that the Petitioner's salary exceeds 
the published "high salary" threshold for similarly employed workers in Texas. 1 Accordingly, we will 
withdraw the Director's determinations that the Petitioner did not satisfy the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii) and (ix). 
Because the Petitioner has established that he meets the requisite three evidentiary criteria, he has 
satisfied the initial evidence requirements. We will consider the evidence submitted in support of all 
remaining criteria, together with the balance of the record, in the final merits determination. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence we will evaluate whether he 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 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-
20.2 
As noted, the Petitioner is currently employed as a senior exploration geolpgist forl J 
II in Texas. He received his doctorate in geological sciences froml .... __________ ____.r 
r===J University..,.._ ____ .,.........in Ukraine in 2007 and worked as a geoscience researcher at the 
Ukrainian Institute of while com letin his graduate studies. The Petitioner also served 
as a senior lecturer in geology at.__ _____ ____.University from 2007 until 2009 and worked for 
Ukraine's largest state-owned oil and gas company from 2008 to 2009. Prior to joining! I 
operations in March 2019, he had worked for related companies in the Oorganization in Ukraine 
and Oman since 2009. 
1 While we conclude that the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to establish that he commands a high salary based 
on his current U.S.-based position, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not establish that he 
earned a high salary while employed in Ukraine and Oman. As noted by the Director, the record lacks comparative salary 
data for the Petitioner's occupation and geographic area of employment during the relevant time periods. 
2 See also USCTS 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 ADI 1-14 4 (Dec.22.2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (stating that USCTS 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 expertise for the immigrant classification). 
3 
As mentioned above, the Petitioner established that he has authored scholarly articles, performed in a 
critical role, and earned a high salary, and submitted evidence related to his contributions to his field 
and one publication about him and relating to his work. 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). 
The record reflects that a profile of the Petitioner and overview of his rofessional career appeared in 
a 2017 book commemorating th .__ ____________________ __. University 
~----~ According to a letter from the publisher, the book focused on the university's history, 
its scientific and educational activities, and the achievements of its researchers, and included a section 
"devoted to the outstanding graduates" of the institution, where the article about the Petitioner, a 2007 
graduate, appeared. A letter from! r who does not appear to be affiliated with the 
university or the publisher, states that the Petitioner's selection for this publication is "an extraordinary 
recognition," and emphasizes that only 300 graduates from the last 50 years were selected for the 
book's "outstanding graduates" section. We acknowledge that it was a significant honor for the 
Petitioner to be selected as a featured graduate and indicative of his considerable success in his field. 
The evidence does not demonstrate, however, that all former students featured in this university 
publication had achieved sustained national or international acclaim, or that being featured in the book 
signifies that any individual graduate of this university has risen to the very top of the field. The record 
also does not establish that this book, which according to the publisher had a publication run of 1,000 
copies, can be considered a professional, major trade publication or other major medium, or that it had 
sufficient distribution to gamer the Petitioner significant national or international recognition. 
In addition, 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" forlesserclassifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). 
The Petitioner has not established that one published article about him reflects a level of media 
recognition that is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
As it relates to the Petitioner's authorship of scholarly articles, we emphasize that publication of 
research does not automatically place one at the top of the field. 3 Here, the Petitioner provided a copy 
of his curriculum vitae (listing 21 "scholarly publications" dated between 2002 and 2008), copies of 
five of his publications, and a screenshot of Google Scholar search results for his name that returned 
five articles authored or co-authored by him. In his letter,__ ____ ~ __ _.the Petitioner's former 
mentor and a professor at the Universit~ lin France, refers to the Petitioner's patents and 
"more than twenty research articles," noting that he is "one of only a few geologists in Ukraine with 
such achievements in the field." However, the Petitioner did not submit additional supporting 
evidence differentiating his publication rate from those of others in his field, or otherwise establishing 
that it is reflective of one who is among the small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
3 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 
Moreover, the Petitioner does not submit evidence demonstrating that he has received national or 
international acclaim on the basis of his publications. As authoring scholarly articles is often inherent 
to the work of scientists and researchers, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of his 
articles can be an indicator to determine the impact and recognition that his work has 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 geoscientists 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. 
Here, the information provided from Google Scholar includes only five of the 21 articles identified on 
the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, and of those five, it indicates that only two have been cited by others. 
Specifically, the information provided by Google Scholar indicates that the Petitioner's 2007 doctoral 
thesis was cited in two other sources, while an article he published in 2005 has garnered one citation. 
The evidence from Google Scholar shows that the field has noticed his work, but the Petitioner has 
not established that such citations are sufficient to demonstrate a level of interest in the field 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not shown that the citations to his research represent attention at a level 
consistent with being among small percentage at the very top of his field. For instance, the Petitioner 
did not provide evidence that would allow us to compare citations to his authored works to the citation 
histories of others in his field of endeavor that are recognized as already being at the top in his field. 
In addition, he did not demonstrate how his publications have contributed to his sustained national or 
international acclaim as his most recent article was published in 2008, ten years prior to the filing of 
the petition. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
As it relates to the Petitioner's performance in critical roles for his employers, the record contains 
numerous letters of recommendation discussing his work for~s operations in Ukraine, its joint 
venture operation wit~ !Oman I, J and his latest role withl Is U.S. 
operations in Texas. 4 These letters demonstrate the Petitioner's expertise in~ ________ _. 
operations in th~ I industry and his value to his employers, particularly in Ukraine and Oman 
where the Petitioner played a critical role in the development of new projects that resulted in significant 
financial investments and returns. However, the testimonial evidence discussing the Petitioner's roles 
withe=] identify how the company benefited from his service in a senior geoscientist role, rather 
than documenting the acclaim or recognition he has received in the field as a whole as a result of his 
work within the organization. 
For examplej I states that "some of [the Petitioner's] projects in Oman have been 
widely discussed in the industry, e.g., the well-known I I project that has turned to 
become the most profitableOdiscovery in Oman and where [the Petitioner] was responsible for 
appraisal and volume evaluation of the field." While I I notes that the Petitioner received a 
company award for his work on the project and the Petitioner has documented this award, the record 
does not elaborate on or corroborate his claim that thel I project, or the Petitioner's work on 
the project, has been "widely discussed" or that the Petitioner garnered national or international 
acclaim or recognition outside the company. I l who worked with the Petitioner on the 
I I project, discusses the geological challenges presented by the Oman I I the 
4 Although we discuss only a sampling of the reference letters, we have reviewed all of the letters in the record. 
5 
innovative tlchniquel the Petitioner used to locateO and the commercial value of the project to the 
company. states that the project and its results were a "notable achievement" that gained 
"much esteem from local and international sources." However, he does not explain the nature or scope 
of this international attention or elaborate as to whether the Petitioner hijself ga7ered any individual 
recognition from outside his employer based on his contributions to the project. 
Other letters describing the Petitioner's work with! lin Ukraine and in Texas are similar in that 
they are sufficient to establish his expertise as a geoscientist and the critical nature of his roles with 
the organization, but they lack any specific examples of how the field has recognized the Petitioner 
for his work.I I Exploration Manager with ______ Texas office, states that the 
Petitioner's "contributions to the team in his current assignment project, as well as in previous 
assignments, have been significant to the business and valuable to the team." While I I and 
otherD representatives comment on the unique skills that the Petitioner has brought to his specific 
projects and assignments with the company, and the Petitioner provided evidence that I I 
activities in Oman and Ukraine both garnered some media attention, the record does not establish how 
the field has widely recognized the Petitioner's contributions to thel !organization in a manner 
reflective of sustained acclaim. Without additional evidence demonstrating that his work foI'LJhas 
been widely recognized, the Petitioner has not shown that his achievements within the organization 
have received a level of acclaim reflective of one who is 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 to establishing his critical roles, the Petitioner has established thatl ~urrently pays 
him a high salary in relation to others in the field. Specifically, the evidence from the Department of 
Labor-sponsored Career One Stop website shows that "high" salaries for geoscientists in Texas, based 
on statewide data, start at "$208,000+". Although the Petitioner's annual salary of $233,100 falls 
within this high range and may demonstrate some degree of recognition of his achievements in the 
field, he has not submitted evidence showing his earnings are at a level reflecting that he is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the top of the field. 
Finally, as it relates to his original contributions, the Petitioner submits evidence related to his Ph.D. 
thesis and other published research, Ukrainian patents issued between 2002 and 2007 while he was a 
graduate student and geoscience researcher with the Ukrainian Institute I I and letters of 
recommendation intended to speak to the significance of his scientific contributions. While 
publications and patents indicate the original nature of his research, they are not necessarily indicative 
of the major significance of those contributions, nor are they sufficient to establish that his 
contributions have garnered him sustained national or international acclaim in the field . 
.__ _______ _,of the Ukrainian.__ _____ __, Institute, describes the Petitioner's thesis as 
"innovative and impactfol" and states that the Petitioner's studies "became one of the main sources of 
practical reference for anyone who is working toward the exploration .__ ___________ _, 
in Ukraine." He states that "other geologists in Ukraine consistently rely on [the Petitioner's] 
groundbreaking findings in furtherance of their own research and scientific work." Specifically, he 
indicates that there have been three "major citations" of the Petitioner's work in scholar! ublications 
related td I exploration and I I published during the last decade . .__ ____ ~=..........,, 
attention to a "notable citation" to the Petitioner's work in the 2013 mono ra h titled 
6 
------------~---------------.--~H=e"""n"""'otes that in this 245-page 
publication, the authors "summarized all successful approaches fo exploration" and "spent 
four pages on referencing [the Petitioner's] technique of measuring~-----~' I I 
emphasizes that the Petitioner's dissertation research was featured because it "set a new unique method 
or a benchmark enabling advancement and expansion o±i~---~~xploration in Ukraine." 
As noted, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of the Petitioner's articles can also be 
an indicator to determine the impact and recognition that his work has had on the field and whether 
such influence has been sustained. However, it is not clear how three total citations to the Petitioner's 
published work, even if one or more of them can be deemed "notable," is indicative.of sustained 
national or international acclaim. Nor does the citation evidence as a whole support! Is claim 
that reliance on the Petitioner's published work is widespread among geoscientists in Ukraine or in 
the field at large. 
~-----~of.__ _______________ ____. notes that the Petitioner, in his 
dissertation, "developed a theoretical basis, mathematical models and practical applications of 
exploration and development ofl t' and states that his research 
"greatly enhanced our understanding of the geophysical data and facilitates the exploration I I 
c=]." He indicates that the Petitioner's knowledge and experience in explorationl,__.========..· 
and 0±1 I as "currently very useful both in Ukraine and USA."I I 
also describes the Petitioner "as an experienced scientist with interesting results of research and 
industrial applications that have been used on real projects in! I," but he does not 
indicate that their shared field recognizes the Petitioner as a nationally or internationally acclaimed 
figure who is among that small percentage at the very top. 
~------~deputy director of geology at the Ukrainian Institute I l specifically 
addresses the Petitioner's Ph.D. dissertation and some of the patents he co-authored during his tenure 
as a researcher. Specifically, he states that the Petitioner's "dissertation research of substantiation of 
prospects for discovering of,__ _____ ~ analysis of the thickness of overlying I l and 
a method that allows to determine a position of I I in relation to al ~ are original scientific 
contributions of major significance in the field of geology because they represent a method of finding 
that are not otherwise detectable by conventional means that are employed 
~th_r_o_u_g_h_o_u_t-th-e-in_d_u_s-try~." I I also notes that the Petitioner was involved in Os early 
exploration activities in Ulaame and participated in two projects "which proved the first in the country 
usage of massive multistagd I." He states that "because of immense success of the 
projects where [the Petitioner] played a leading role and influence they had on the whole exploration 
industry, this approach isnow widely used b= rlkrainianJ !companies] on other fields, which 
make possible to increase! J significantly." While this evidence~s that the 
Petitioner's research and patented methods impacted! 
0 
I exploration and L___Jin parts of 
Ukraine, the record does not establish how his contributions, or their practical application, resulted in 
his national or international acclaim. 
We do not question that the Petitioner has made original contributions to his field and that his 
contributions to some high-profile projects have been beneficial to his employers and have 
applicability within thd I industry. However, the issue is whether recognition of the 
Petitioner's contributions has risen to the level of sustained national or international acclaim that has 
7 
elevated the Petitioner to the very top of his field. The Petitioner has shown that his work surrounding 
exploration an~ I is important and has practical 
'------:-,,----,------,-------,--..,........,.~ 
application, but not that it hqs earned him sustained acclaim. 
The record contains a number of recommendation letters that summarize the Petitioner's achievements 
and offer high praise of his knowledge and expertise but do not address how he has received sustained 
national or international acclaim for those achievements. For example,! I states that the 
Petitioner's "extraordinary talent and extensive practical experience ... place him f monI the very few 
who have reached this sort of caliber and expertise." .__ ________ ~of tates that the 
Petitioner's "unique knowledge skills and technical experience ... demonstrate that he is far more 
important to the industry and business than most others" and that he is "one of the most experienced 
experts I have every worked with." A recommendation letter from.__ ___ ~ ___ ...., the 
Petitioner's former mentor, states that his "geological background, interdisciplinary expertise and 
teaching skills allow him to manage and deliver ro · ects and undertake scientific enquiries in a manner 
that places him in the top 5% of the field." states that the Petitioner "is a scientist of 
extraordinary ability in the field o '----~ exploration." 
Repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. 
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); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Here, the letters alone 
do not show that the Petitioner is viewed by the overall field as being among that small percentage at 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The letters are not accompanied by 
sufficient independent evidence that the Petitioner has received sustained national or international 
acclaim for his achievements and is widely regarded as having a career of acclaimed work. See H.R. 
Rep. No. at 59. 
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 has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). The record reflects that the Petitioner is highly regarded by his colleagues, 
has enjoyed a very successful academic and professional career, and has worked on some high-profile 
.__ ___ ~I.projects for a distinguished employer in the field. 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; 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8