dismissed EB-1A Case: Petroleum Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 18, 2024 In Re: 34064976 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
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). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
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 may demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, a petitioner must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet at least three of the ten criteria listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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. 20 l 0) 
( 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a petroleum engineer who has experience managing oil drilling projects in Russia. 
The Petitioner intends to continue his work in the energy industry in the United States. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he 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 determined that the Petitioner did not meet claimed criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (v), or (viii). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets these criteria, as well 
as the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) concerning high salary or remuneration. As more fully 
discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met at least three of the required criteria. 
Documentation ofthe individual's receipt oflesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field ofendeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i). 
As evidence of his eligibility under this criterion, the Petitioner initially submitted an Honorary 
Certificate from the I Iwhich he reasserts on appeal "is a 
prestigious national award recognizing significant contributions to the fuel and energy complex." He 
further asserts that the "certificate is issued to individuals with outstanding achievements in the 
industry, as confirmed by thel Iregulations," and that the certificate's "extensive participation 
and competitive selection process underscore its national recognition." In response to a request for 
evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the following information regarding the certificate: 
[T]he criteria set forth by the ______ for bestowing such recognition 
emphasize the need for outstanding achievements and contributions spanning a 
minimum of five years. This requirement underscores the depth and duration of [the 
Petitioner's] involvement and impact within the fuel and energy complex, highlighting 
the sustained nature of his contributions over an extended period. 
Additionally, the certificate explicitly acknowledges [the Petitioner's] role in various 
aspects of the industry, including operational stability, timely commissioning of 
facilities, resource efficiency, and cost reduction. These facets represent fundamental 
pillars of success within the energy sector, indicating that [the Petitioner's] efforts have 
not only been substantial but also instrumental in driving tangible improvements and 
advancements within the field. 
2 
The Petitioner's assertions here are not supported by documentation found in the record. 1 
Documentation that the Petitioner references in both his RFE response and on appeal consists of his 
certificate and an order from the ________________ titled "About awarding 
employees of the fuel and energy complex." The order states only that the certificate is presented to 
the Petitioner "for a great personal contribution to the development of the fuel and energy complex, 
many years of conscientious work and in connection with the professional holiday - the Day of Oil 
and Gas Industry Workers." This document does not identify specific achievements required of a 
certificate recipient or speak to the recipient selection process. Although the certificate appears to be 
awarded by a component of the federal government, the record does not include documentation 
concerning whether the certificate itself is recognized nationally or provide details regarding the scope 
or scale of competition or eligibility requirements to receive such a certificate. The record does not 
contain supporting documentation describing what components of a recipient's performance are 
judged to inform a determination of demonstrated excellence in the field of energy production. The 
Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. He has not done so here. As such, the Petitioner has not met the 
requirements for this criterion. 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
To demonstrate his eligibility under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted evidence of his paid 
membership with the Society of Petroleum Engineers, or SPE. The Petitioner included webpages from 
the organization's website that provide information about its mission, vision, board of directors, and 
president. On appeal, the Petitioner provides additional webpages from SPE's website and reiterates 
his initial assertion that membership with the organization requires outstanding achievements as 
judged by recognized experts in the field. The Petitioner emphasizes SPE's mission and vision 
statements, which include connecting a global community of energy professionals to exchange 
knowledge to achieve a "sustainable energy future," and he states that membership benefits, which 
include access to industry journals and conferences, highlight "the association's focus on maintaining 
high standards among its members." In addition, he provides the following description of the evidence 
submitted about SPE: 
The documentation provided included detailed information about the SPE Board of 
Directors, demonstrating that the leadership and review processes within SPE involve 
individuals who are recognized experts in the field of petroleum engineering. These 
experts contribute to the development and implementation of SPE's rigorous standards 
for membership, ensuring that only individuals with significant achievements and 
contributions in the field are admitted. 
1 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. Relevant 
considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field include, but are 
not limited to: the criteria used to grant the awards or prizes; the national or international significance of the awards or 
prizes in the field; the number of awardees or prize recipients; and limitations on competitors. 
3 
The SPE's criteria for professional membership include not only employment or 
activity in the field but also significant contributions to the industry, demonstrated by 
technical competence, and adherence to high professional standards. This is evident 
from the comprehensive suite of benefits offered to members, aimed at empowering 
professionals in the oil and gas industry to thrive in their careers and contribute to the 
sustainable energy future envisioned by the organization. 
The documentation submitted from SPE's website, however, does not reflect the Petitioner's 
assertions. It does not include any information about membership standards or qualifications. A page 
from spe.org depicting the Petitioner's status as a paid member provides his membership identification 
number, validity dates, and his contact information. Neither the documentation originally submitted 
nor the information from SPE's website submitted on appeal speak to membership requirements or 
the expertise of any individuals judging the qualifications of membership applicants. The Petitioner 
has not supported his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Thus, the Petitioner has not established that he has met the 
requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions ofmajor significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner submitted several letters of recommendation from former colleagues as evidence of his 
original contributions to the field of oil extraction, and he refers to these letters on appeal as evidence 
of his eligibility under this criterion. These letters discuss the Petitioner's managerial skills and "deep 
knowledge of the drilling industry," and they describe his responsibilities and positive contributions 
to his employers; such contributions include "his role in bringing the company's branch to a leading 
position in the rating of drilling contractors in Russia" and his role in the "successful implementation 
of the project to mobilize drilling rigs and drill deep exploration wells in the fields of Eastern Siberia." 
While these letters demonstrate the Petitioner's important role in achieving the aims of his employers, 
they do not describe any original contributions that the Petitioner has made within the field of oil 
extraction or to the oil and gas industry. 2 We note that, on appeal, the Petitioner also references his 
certificate from I Ias "compelling evidence of his significant contributions 
to the industry." As explained above, the certificate is not accompanied by documentation to establish 
what specific achievements are required to be awarded the certificate or otherwise demonstrate the 
significance of the certificate to an awardee within the field. The certificate itself does not speak to 
whether a recipient has made an original contribution of major significance in the field. The Petitioner 
has not met the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has pe1formed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
2 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2(B)(5), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. Submitted letters 
should specifically describe the person's contribution and its significance to the field and should also set forth the basis of 
the writer's knowledge and expertise. 
4 
Both in response to the RFE and on appeal, the Petitioner points to letters of recommendation from 
colleagues as evidence of his eligibility under this criterion. These letters describe the Petitioner's 
positive contributions to his employers' goals and indicate that he has served in leading and critical 
roles for those companies. The record, however, does not contain probative evidence to demonstrate 
that these companies are considered to have distinguished reputations. For example, while the 
Petitioner refers to one company as "a well-known service company in the oil and gas industry" and 
"a prominent player in the Russian oil industry," he has not provided documentation about the 
company or its position or level of recognition within the industry. And although the Petitioner 
initially provided webpages from the website of another company that employed him, the information 
within those pages is general and does not address the company's reputation in the industry.3 The 
Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to demonstrate his eligibility under this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual 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). 
Because the Petitioner did not identify or claim eligibility under any specific criteria when initially 
filing his petition, the Director issued an RFE explaining that he could submit evidence to demonstrate 
his eligibility under any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). On appeal, for the first time, 
the Petitioner asserts that he has met the requirements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
relating to an individual's receipt of a high salary relative to others in the occupational field. The RFE 
put the Petitioner on notice and allowed him a reasonable opportunity to provide this evidence; 
therefore, we will not consider evidence submitted under this criterion for the first time on appeal. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(ll) (requiring all requested evidence be submitted together at one time); Matter 
of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (declining to consider new evidence submitted on 
appeal because "the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable 
opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial"). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documentation that the Petitioner meets at least three of the ten lesser criteria. As a result, we need 
not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. We 
therefore reserve this issue.4 Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the 
aggregate, concluding that it does not support a conclusion that the Petitioner has established the 
acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
3 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(8), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. The relative size or 
longevity of an organization or establishment is not in and of itself a determining factor but is considered together with 
other information to determine whether a distinguished reputation exists. Other relevant factors for evaluating the 
reputation of an organization or establishment can include the scale of its customer base or relevant media coverage. 
Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines "distinguished" as "marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence" or 
"befitting an eminent person." 
4 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter olL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5 
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). Here, the record indicates that the Petitioner made positive contributions to 
his employers, but it does not show that this success has translated into individual recognition for the 
Petitioner at a level that rises to sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrates 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 )(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate 
that the Petitioner is one of the small percentage who has risen to the 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). 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6