dismissed EB-1A Case: Petroleum Engineering

MATTER OF P-D-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 16,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a petroleum engineer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
the sciences. 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 Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, stating that he meets at least three criteria and that he is 
eligible for the classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -An alien is described in this subparagraph 
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 
.
Matter of P-D-
(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 documentation that meets at least three of the 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. 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 it fulfills the required number of criteria, is 
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), aff'd, 683 
F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the 
"truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "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"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a petroleum 
engineer who is employed at 
as a well completion project manager. Because he has not indicated or established that 
he has received a major, interna,tionally recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the 
alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director 
found that he did not meet any of the regulatory criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains his 
eligibility for the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the original contributions 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the leading or critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), and the high salary criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). We have reviewed 
all of the evidence in the record, and determined that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
meets at least three criteria. 
2 
.
Matter of P-D-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 1 
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 specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner offered emails reflecting his managerial duties of reviewing resumes for prospective 
workers and processing promotions for his current subordinates, as well as conducting leadership 
assessments for employee development programs. In addition, he submitted three recommendation 
letters from employees at who attested to his involvement in the hiring and recruiting of 
workers, including requests to review the credentials of individuals outside of his employer. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires evidence that the Petitioner has served as "a 
judge" of the work of others. The phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a judging 
capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified under the regulation. The documentation 
mentioned above indicates that the Petitioner supervised his subordinates and made personnel 
decisions as part of his' role as a well completion project manager for He, however, did 
not demonstrate that he actually served as a judge consistent with the plain language of this 
regulatory criterion. Not every instance of reviewing another's work as part of one's job duties 
satisfies this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner references one of our unpublished decisions, in which we concluded that an 
editor-in-chief of a magazine satisfied this criterion, in part, because he reviewed the work of others 
before deciding whether to accept it for publication. Matter of M-A-, ID# 15319 (AAO Feb. 8, 
2016). We also noted that the petitioner in Matter of M-A- served on an organization's prize 
selection committee and selected prize winners. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that his authority 
to make personnel decisions is similar to the duties of an editor who assessed submissions for 
publication purposes and who selected prize winners. Moreover, that decision was not published as 
a precedent and therefore does not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(c). Finally, the regulations include a separate criterion for a petitioner's role within an 
organization, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), which is discussed below. Consistent with the regulatory 
requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria, we will generally not consider 
evidence relating to the leading or critical role criterion to satisfy this one. Therefore, the Petitioner 
has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner provided recommendation letters discussing his role of presenting and leading the 
implementation of technologies to the company's other global locations. For instance, 
global technical advisor, stated that the Petitioner led "[t]he 
1 
We will discuss those criteria the Petitioner has raised and for which the record contains relevant evidence. 
3 
.
Matter of P-D-
[that] was developed by 
to prevent sand production in unconsolidated open hole horizontal wells with unstable 
shales." In addition, indicated that "[i]n 
support of a new 
developed by called the ' the Petitioner co-
authored a paper and spoke at annual gathering. 
Similarly, secretary of local government, talked 
about the Petitioner's presentations "on innovative technology" and "on 
innovative In order to meet this regulatory criterion, the Petitioner 
must show that his original contributions are of major significance in the field. Here, the original 
contributions referenced in the letters relate to technology developed by rather than by 
the Petitioner. 
Moreover, while he provided copies of the slides that he presented on behalf of the 
Petitioner did not show that they are tantamount to original contributions of major significance in the 
field consistent with the,regulatory criterion. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a 
finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact 
in the field). The Petitioner did not establish, for example, that his presentations impacted or 
influenced the field beyond or that they were of major significance in the field. Further, 
the record does not indicate that his presentations have been frequently cited by others or have 
otherwise signi,ficantly impacted the field. Publications and presentations are not sufficient under 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." In 2010, the 
Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that we did not abuse our discretion in our adverse finding 
relating to this criterion because the contributions in question were not major. 596 F.3d at 1122. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has submitted recommendation letters detailing his role in 
carrying out and representing innovative technologies. In this role, the letters 
indicated that his successes added to reputation in the field. The record also includes 
evidence of the company's distinguished reputation. Therefore, he has established that he meets 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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Petitioner submits documentation showing numerous income sources for 2014 and 2015. The 
record reflects that he received a salary in addition to being compensated with. allowances and 
incentives, such as car and housing allotments and stock options. In accordance with this regulatory 
criterion, he must demonstrate that he has commanded a high salary or that his remuneration for 
services is significantly high. 
4 
.
Matter of P-D-
Although he offers several documents relating to his earnings for 2014 and 2015, the Petitioner has 
provided varying figures and has not established his actual salary or remuneration for those years. 
Specifically, according to his IRS Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, his wages, tips, and other 
compensation (box 1) for 2014 was $171,476.96. A supplement to Form W-2 noted that he received 
an additional $34,267 for ' NO W-2" for a total annual income of $205,743.96. 
Regarding his 2015 Form W-2, he earned $186,874.89. In addition, he provided a letter from 
indicating_that his taxable income in Nigeria from April through December 2015 was 
22,084,647.74 Nigerian Naira, or approximately $110,950. However, he also submitted a statement 
of foreign payroll payments from indicating that in addition 
to receiving a salary, he was compensated with other allowances and incentives. While his total 
earnings in 2014 and 2015 according to were $284,483.30 and $114,481.17, respectively, his 
base salary was $138,248.70 and $41,768.09. Regarding 2015, he indicated on his curriculum vitae 
that he worked for in Texas from July 2014 to May 2015 and then in 
Nigeria from May 2015 to present (20 16). The figures in the letter do not coincide with 
the statement. Moreover, the record does not specify if his foreign earnings are included in the 
numbers reported in the Form W-2s, or if the numbers reported on the Form W-2s are based on a 
salary or a combination of salary and other compensation or remuneration, such as bonuses, stock 
options, and living allowances. 
In his affidavit submitted at the initial filing of the petition, the Petitioner stated that he earned 
$284,483 in 2014, which corresponds with the figures reported on his statement. However, as 
discussed above, that figure is his total earnings that include other compensation; his base salary was 
reported as $138,248.70, but his Form W-2 and supplement reflect $205,743.96. As it pertains to 
2015, the Petitioner claimed that he earned $114,481.17 for his work from January to April in 
Texas, and then paid an equivalent of $124,980.91 from May. through December for his 
work in Nigeria for a total of $239,162.08. Again, his statement reflects a base salary of 
$41,768.09, and the record does not specify if the numbers reported on his 2014 and 2015 Form 
W -2s are based entirely on a salary or a combination of salary and other compensation. 
Moreover, as evidence that he commands a high salary compared to others in his field, the Petitioner 
presented documents from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, PayScale, and Glassdoor. The 
documentation, however, relates to the average salaries of petroleum engineers. As discussed, the 
Petitioner was employed in 2014 and 2015 in a managerial capacity and received wages based on 
such a position. Thus, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he earned a high salary or significantly 
high remuneration for services in relation to other managers of petroleum engineers. See Matter of 
Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's earnings 
versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Crimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) 
(considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 
444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL 
defensemen). 
The record does contain a document from indicating that 
annual salaries for managers of reservoir and petroleum engineers average $123,000 per year. 
5 
.
Matter of P-D-
However, as discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish his actual salaries for 2014 and 2015 in 
order to compare his wages to those of other managers. Furthermore, he did not demonstrate that his 
other compensation, such as allowances and bonuses, constitute significantly high remuneration as 
compared to other managers in petroleum engineering. For these reasons, he has not shown that he 
has received a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others 
in the field. 
B. Summary 
While the evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner is a valued employee at he has not 
submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at 
least three of the criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether it demonstrates that the 
individual "has sustained national or international acclaim" such that he is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements "have 
been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d 
at 1119-20. Although we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in 
Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner has not 
established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofP-D-, ID# 353732 (AAO May 16, 2017) 
6