dismissed EB-1A Case: Oil And Gas

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 23071325 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC . 9, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an oil and gas specialist, 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 Texas Service Center Director 
denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (petition), concluding the Petitioner did 
not establish that they had a major, internationally recognized award, nor did they demonstrate they 
met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria . The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner 
bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . Section 291 
of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this 
matter de nova. Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec . 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 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 
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 indicates he is an oil and gas construction s ecialist who earned a master's degree in 
project management from thel University in 2010, and a bachelor's degree in 
mechanical engineering from University India) in 2005. He also holds related project 
management certifications. 
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). Before the Director, the Petitioner claimed to have met five of the regulatory 
criteria in the following categories: 
• Participation as a judge; 
• Contributions of major significance; 
• Authorship of scholarly articles; 
• Performance of a leading or critical role for distinguished entities; and 
• High salary or remuneration. 
The Director decided that the Petitioner satisfied two of the criteria relating to judging and authorship 
of scholarly articles, but he had not satisfied the criteria associated with original contributions, leading 
or critical role, or high salary or remuneration. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meet each 
of the evidentiary criteria the Director declined to grant. 1 After reviewing all the evidence in the 
record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied the judging and the scholarly articles 
criteria, but not any of the remaining claimed classes of evidence. 
1 We note the appeal brief in this case was in excess of 190 pages, of which only a small portion is necessa1y to dispose of this 
appeal. The overwhelming majority of the appellate evidence was previously offered before the Director, and we gently note 
for the Petitioner that the documentation he submitted for the record before the Director continues to be present for the appeal 
and it is unnecessary to resubmit large amounts of previously submitted materials. Garey v. James S. Farrin, P.C., 35 F.4th 
917, 920 n. l (4th Cir. 2022) (imploring litigants to only submit the necessary amount of material on appeal in the interest of 
the environment and citing Theodore Seuss Geissel, The Lorax 23 (1971) ("I speak for the trees, for the trees have no 
tongues.")). 
2 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work 
of others in the same or an allied field of spec[fication for which classification is sought. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director determined the Petitioner met the requirements of this criterion and we agree with the 
Director's decision. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The primary requirement here, is that the Petitioner's contributions in their field were original. The 
plain language of this regulatory criterion also requires that the contributions rise to the level of major 
significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or to an organization. See Visinscaia, 
4 F. Supp. 3d at 135-36. The regulatory phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it 
has some meaning. See United States v. Campos-Serrano, 404 U.S. 293,301 n.14 (1971) (finding that 
if it is possible, statutory or regulatory language ought to be construed in its entirety to prevent any 
clause, sentence, or word from being rendered be superfluous, void, or insignificant); Inhabitants of 
Montclair Twp. v. Ramsdell, 107 U.S. 147, 152 (1883). Further, the Petitioner's contributions must 
have already been realized rather than being potential, future improvements. Contributions of major 
significance connotes that the Petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. The Petitioner 
must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
The Petitioner provided several letters from those working in the petroleum industry and he further 
claims eligibility here based on copyright certificates, a certificate of excellence, a peer-reviewed 
published book, participation in oil and gas conferences, and contracts with companies using his 
"developed technology." The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements 
of this criterion. The Director noted the Petitioner did not provide supporting material to corroborate 
the claims of the letters' authors. Additionally, although acknowledging the Petitioner's published 
and peer-reviewed work as supporting the originality of his contributions, they determined his articles 
and research did not reflect this material was of major significance in the broader field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims the Director overlooked much of the evidence he submitted. Even 
though the Petitioner's appeal brief lists the material he alleges the Director failed to evaluate in the 
decision, his appeal does not explain how this material-consisting of 166 pages-sufficiently 
satisfies this criterion's requirements. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Commensurate with that burden is 
responsibility for explaining the significance of proffered evidence. Repaka v. Beers, 993 F. Supp. 2d 
1214, 1219 (S.D. Cal. 2014). 
Filing parties should not submit large quantities of evidence without notifying the appellate body of 
the specific documentation that corroborates their claims within such material, as doing so places an 
undue burden on the appellate body to search through the documentation without the aid of the filing 
party's knowledge. Toquero v. INS., 956 F.2d 193, 196 n.4 (9th Cir. 1992). A reviewing body is not 
3 
required to sift through the record to search for errors and build the appellant's argument before 
dismissing the appeal. Id.; Spear Mktg., Inc. v. BancorpSouth Bank, 791 F.3d 586, 599 (5th Cir. 2015); 
S.E. C. v. Thomas, 965 F.2d 825, 827 (10th Cir. 1992). The truth is to be determined not by the quantity 
of evidence alone but by its quality. Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 ( citing Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N 
Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 1989)). 
"[I]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed 
argumentation, are deemed waived." United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266, 319 (6th Cir. 2010) 
(quoting Tolbert v. Queens College, 242 F.3d 58, 75 (2d Cir.2001)); see also McPherson v. Kelsey, 
125 F.3d 989, 995-96 (6th Cir. 1997). The Petitioner has essentially abandoned his claims under this 
criterion by not adequately presenting his arguments on appeal. Because the Petitioner has not 
satisfied his burden on appeal to inform us of how this significant amount of material should be applied 
to the regulatory requirements, we will not offer an in-depth discussion of his claims or the evidence. 
A brief review of the evidence and arguments advanced on appeal does not reveal that any of the 
Petitioner's activities have resulted in any significant impact on his broader field as a whole, as 
opposed to impacts on individual projects. The letters primarily discuss how he made improvements 
to particular projects or to operations within the companies that have employed him. And only one 
author of a support letter indicates he has relied on the Petitioner's work and implemented it within 
his company. However, what is lacking is an indication of how that has impacted the industry as a 
whole. It is also not apparent how the Petitioner's other achievements or works have resulted in a 
significant effect within the broader field. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Director determined the Petitioner met the requirements of this criterion and we agree with that 
conclusion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and the role's 
matching duties. A critical role should be apparent from the petitioner's impact on the organization 
or the establishment's activities. Ultimately, the leading or the critical role must be performed on 
behalf of the organization that enjoys a distinguished reputation, rather than for a subordinate group. 
See Strategati, LLC v. Sessions, No. 3:18-CV-01200-H-AGS, 2019 WL 2330181, at *7 (S.D. Cal. 
May 31, 2019); Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F. Supp. 2d 535,545 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). The Petitioner's 
performance in this role should establish whether the role was critical for organizations or 
establishments as a whole. 
The Petitioner must demonstrate that the organizations or establishments have a distinguished 
reputation. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy reflects that organizations or 
establishments that enjoy a distinguished reputation are "marked by eminence, distinction, or 
excellence." 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2 (Appendices), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (citing 
to the definition of distinguished, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-
4 
webster.com/dictionary/distinguished). The Petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all these 
elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion as it relates 
to performing in a leading or in a critical role. On appeal, the Petitioner claims eligibility under two 
organizations: I I and I I 
The Petitioner relies on four letters on appeal as supporting evidence under this criterion. 
First, we discuss! !Whether this entity enjoys a distinguished reputation is a mandatory 
requirement. Regarding their reputation, the Petitioner provided his own account in correspondence, and 
in response to the Director's request for evidence he offered material about the organization from 
Wikipedia. With regard to information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances about the reliability of 
the content from this open, user-edited internet site. See United States v. Lawson, 677 F.3d 629, 
650-51 (4th Cir. 2012); Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 910-11 (8th Cir. 2008); see also Sibanda 
v. Holder, 778 F.3d 676, 680 (7th Cir. 2015). The Wikipedia website even contains a disclaimer 
indicating it makes no guarantee of the validity of the information found on the site. Wikipedia: 
General disclaimer, Wikipedia (Dec. 9, 2022), 
https :// en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_ disclaimer. 
Although some of the letters the Petitioner provided, and his own filing statements, imply ___ 
might enjoy a distinguished reputation, the record lacks objective materials. Some examples might 
include but are not limited to prestigious awards, media coverage, or published rankings to 
demonstrate! I has a distinguished reputation. Also, we note the record lacks adequate 
evidence relating to the company's history in the industry. 
Because the Petitioner has not established I I enjoys a distinguished reputation, 1t 1s 
unnecessary that we offer a detailed analysis of the roles he has performed for them. Nevertheless, 
we offer a brief account. The Petitioner's roles at I 1 appear to be lower on the leadership 
spectrum as he was characterized as a "Project Management Professional" by I formerly the 
Construction Director of Global Technical Services at 11 I has not stated, nor has 
he described the Petitioner's duties or his performance in such a manner that the Petitioner can be said 
to have led the organization. The record does not establish the Petitioner performed in a leading role for 
I I Further, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that any subordinate entity ( e.g., individual 
projects, divisions, or departments) in which he led, themselves enjoyed a distinguished reputation. As a 
result, the Petitioner has not shown that he performed in a leading role for an organization or establishment 
that enjoys a distinguished reputation. 
Additionally, while his roles appear to have been leading or critical to individual projects, 
the record lacks evidence that those projects, either individually or collectively, resulted in any significant 
impact on the organization. And it is unclear from the record that the Petitioner's performance on the 
identified projects has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the 
organization or establishment's activities. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at (Appendices). Although 
we acknowledge his performance in some instances furthered his organization's broader business 
dealings, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that such incremental business arrangements rise to the level 
the regulation and USCIS policy requires. 
5 
Next, we consider whether the Petitioner has shown I I is a qualifying organization or 
establishment. Again, outside his own statements, the only evidence about this organization the 
Petitioner provided was an article about this entity originating from Wikipedia, which we noted above 
is not a reliable resource and does not satisfy his burden regarding this organization's reputation. As 
it relates to his role for this organization, the Petitioner provided a letter from a site manager who was 
the Petitioner's supervisor while he was a construction manager during the construction and 
pre-commission phase of a ______ production facility from 2006-2008. 
This former supervisor described the Petitioner's work as leading and critical on the single facility in 
India. Although the supervisor noted a novel idea the Petitioner proposed to increase I cash 
flow, the extent of this increase is not apparent from the letter, and we are unable to determine how 
critical those increased funds were to the organization's operations companywide. The evidence and 
the claims the Petitioner advances relating tol I are insufficient to satisfy the standard here. 
Although the Petitioner served in a managerial position on company projects, he has not submitted 
evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Petitioner claimed eligibility under this criterion noting his recent work as a senior technical 
services specialist for I I falls under the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook 
Handbook (Handbook) profile for Construction Managers. The Director determined that the Petitioner 
did not meet the requirements of this criterion. Specifically, the Director found the Petitioner did not 
establish that the appropriate occupation in which to compare was that of Construction Managers. The 
Director noted the Petitioner's responsibilities exceeded what is normally associated with a 
Construction Manager and opined that it appeared a more appropriate comparison is an engineer in 
the oil and gas industry. 
On appeal, the Petitioner simply disagrees with the Director's findings and offers a letter from the 
human resources department forl I This letter states the position the Petitioner occupies 
was created for those who transition from field engineering roles to a construction management role 
on promotion and it is "at par with Dy. Construction Manager in the general construction industry." 
First, neither the letter nor the Petitioner explain what a "Dy Construction Manager" position consists 
of Nevertheless, it appears they are implying that this is a general construction managerial position. 
Although we accept I I account regarding the similarities between the position the 
Petitioner previously occupied in their organization and construction managers in general, we find the 
letter to be insufficient to satisfy the Petitioner's preponderance burden. The letter did not offer any 
job description for his position, much less a detailed explanation. Nor did it compare and contrast the 
responsibilities of the position the Petitioner occupied with the Construction Manager profile within 
the Handbook. At best, we have the Petitioner's andl I claims of the similarities, but this 
material lacks persuasiveness. 
A petitioner's burden of proof comprises both the initial burden of production, as well as the ultimate 
burden of persuasion. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136, 1142 n.3 (BIA 1998); also see the definition 
6 
of burden of proof from Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (reflecting the burden of proof 
includes both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion). Satisfying the burden of 
persuasion means the filing party must establish the degree to which their arguments and evidence 
should persuade or convince USCIS that the requisite eligibility parameters have been met (i.e., the 
obligation to persuade the trier of fact of the truth of a proposition). Dir., Office of Workers' Comp. 
Programs, Dep't of Labor v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267,274 (1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not met that burden, and as a result, he has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we do not need to provide the type 
of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
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 that goal. USCIS 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). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of their 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, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203(b)(l)(A). Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and they are one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(l)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated their 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