dismissed EB-1A Case: Petroleum Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-B-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 24.2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140. IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a petroleum engmeer and manager, 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 )(I )(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 that the record did not 
establish, as required, that he meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria necessary to demonstrate 
national or international acclaim. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets several of the requisite criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(I )(A) of the Act describes qualified immigrants for this classification as follows: 
(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 111 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 
.
Malter (ii'v/ -B-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demons trate a one-time achievement that is a major, 
internationally recognized award. Alternatively, he or she must provide 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 requirement s, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a tina ! merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the s mall percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCJS, 596 F.J d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0). 1 
This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be determ ined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality, " as well as the principle that we examine "each piece of 
evidence tor relevance, probativ e 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." ,\,fatter (?l 
Chawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has \Vorked for for many years as a petroleum engineer, asset manager, 
reservoir engineer, portfolio advisor , petroleum engineering team manager, and applied reservoir 
manage r (ARM). The record contains voluminous information about and multiple highly 
technical PowerP oint presentat ions the Petitioner prepared for The Petitioner also offered 
items relating to the import ance of energy independenc e to the United States and the oil and gas 
industr y to the Californi a economy. While is a large multinational compan y 
that contributes to the Californ ia economy, at issue is whether the Petitioner himself enjoys national 
or international acclaim. While the Petitioner has satisfied at least three criteria, when considered in 
the aggregate, that evidence is not indicative of the necessary leve l of recognition in the field as a 
whole. 
A. Criteria 
The Petitio ner has met the three criteria we address below. We acknowledge that the record contai ns 
considerable evidence beyond what we discuss in this section. In our final merits determination, 
however, we will consider the entire record, includin g those exhibits that do not satist)r the criteria 
tor which the Petitioner offered them. 
1 
This case discusses 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 detennination. See also Vi.~insca ia v. Beers. 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 13 1-32 (D.D.C. 20 13); Riial v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 20 11 ). 
2 
.
Maller of M-B-
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel. as a judge olthe work (?l 
others in the same or .an allied field of spec!fication .fiH· which class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) . 
The Petitioner correctly notes on appeal that we are bound by the plain language requirements of this 
criterion, and cannot, in the initial stage, look at qualitative issues such as the selection process tor the 
judges. The Petitioner served as a member of 
The objectives included reviewing small capital project 
decisions , ensuring the utilization of appropriate and consistent processes and techniques to evaluate 
oppot1unity, ensuring consistent project lookbacks and implementing lessons learned, and providing 
feedback to the team on their progress and areas for improvement. The Petitioner's services on the 
satisfy this criterion. 
Evidence (?f the alien 's authorship (?l scholarly articles in the field in pr(4essional or major trade 
publications or other mqjor media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) . 
While neither the Petitioner nor the Director addressed this criterion, the record contains sufficient 
evidence to meet it. Specifically, the Petitioner presented his scholarly engineering research at 
conferences, which appeared in the published proceedings of these events. These published articles 
meet this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has perfhrmed in a leading or critical role fhr mxanizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner had served in managerial positions for but 
concluded that his roles have not been leading or critical to the entire organization. On appeal, the 
Petitioner maintains that the importance of his role in The Congo is demonstrated by a letter from 
an enterprise hiring manager at He also contends that, ''as the top 
petroleum engineer, he is essential to field operations in California's vast 
As support, he references his curriculum vitae. Finally, he maintain s that the 
letters from colleagues corroborate his influence within and across the global petroleum 
industry. While many of the letters are vague or focus on the Petitioner 's personal character rather than 
his role tor two of them sufficiently explain the critical nature of the Petitioner 's role in The 
Congo. 
the Congo Country Manager during the Petitioner 's time there, discusses in detail his 
accomplishments. While inconsistency regarding dates and his use of numerous 
undefined acronyms makes his letter difficult to follow at times,2 he sutliciently describes how the 
2 He first states that the Petitioner worked directly for him and served on the leadership team in 2007 and 2008 . later 
stating that he stepped in to the asset team leader position for ''much of 2008,'' and finally affirming that he served as 
acting asset manager from 2006 through 2008. list of the Petitioner's titles indicates that he was a lead 
petroleum engineer in 2006 throu gh 2008 and the acting asset manager in 2009. 
3 
.
Matter of M-B-
Petitioner's role was critical to For example, he managed the execution of a $2.7 billion 
capital project, monitoring the schedule and capital spent. He also tilled in for an absent asset team 
leader, assuming responsibility for that position and performing as the petroleum engineer tor all the 
Congo '; · assets. He was the primary author for business planning, reserves, production, project 
updates, and compliance documents for all assets in The Congo. The Petitioner's team recommended a 
growth strategy in The Congo and developed the joint venture relationship, resulting in smoother 
communication and project execution. a employee from 1979 through 2011, 
confirms that the Petitioner's metering study was "key to achieving an improved position for 
These letters adequately clarify how the Petitioner was critical to ventures in The Congo. 
For all of the above reasons, the Petitioner has satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements by 
submitting evidence that meets at least three criteria. Next , we consider the record in the aggregate . 
B. Final Merits Determination 
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. If so, a petitioner has met the requisite burden of proof and 
established eligibility for visa classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability. " 
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. 
The Petitioner documented 
two memberships, in the and the 
Neither membership meets the requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R . 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), which mandates that the membership is limited to those who demonstrate 
outstanding achievements. Members in must work in an area related to the petroleum industry , 
and either (1) hold a university degree equivalent to a four-year bachelor's degree or higher in 
engineering or basic or applied science , or (2) a two-year science or engineering degree or a four­
year degree in a field other than science or engineering plus six years of active practice in support of 
the petroleum industry. None of these education or experience requirements represents an 
outstanding achievement. The admits corporations , not 
individuals , and the Petitioner obtained his membership through The record suggest s that 
membership is based on corporate patronage and financial support. The Petitioner has 
not shown that the admits individuals based on their outstanding 
achievements. Regardless , the record does not verify that his affiliation with either of the above 
entities is indicative of national or international acclaim. 
While the memberships by themselves are not indicative of the Petitioner"s level of recognition, we 
will also consider, as part of the final merits determination , his level of involvement in the The 
Petitioner joined the program of the Congo section and served on the 
board for publicity , internet , and as the young professionals focal point. He received an email 
thanking him for his efforts to rejuvenate in The Congo and received the 
4 
.
Malter of M-B-
While the evidence confirms that the Petitioner performed valuable 
administrative and promotional services for in The Congo, it does not demonstrate that he 
enjoys national or international acclaim as a petroleum engineer or is among the small percentage at 
the top of that field. 
The Petitioner's experience as a team leader and with the ORB demonstrates his value to 
but does not establish any recognition beyond that company. The Petitioner's perforn1ance as a first 
or second line manager, even for a large multinational corporation, does not reflect national or 
international acclaim. While clearly valued his opinion when it selected him for the 
once again, a favorable reputation with one's own employer is not indicative of his standing in the 
field as a whole. 
The Petitioner offered his curriculum vitae, reference letters, his performance ratings , employee 
awards, and internal and industry conference presentations . These exhibits do not corroborate any 
influence or recognition beyond his employer. At the outset, while the Petitioner specified that his 
curriculum vitae demonstrates his contributions, we look to whether the record supports his own 
attestations with independent evidence. and detail the Petitioner ' s projects 
in The Congo and their importance to but do not identify how this work influenced the 
field as a whole. ' the ARM for the at explains that the 
Petitioner acted on behalf for one year, managing a team of more than 50 employees 
relating to projects that yielded ·'22 and 12 of development and base busine ss 
opportunities." 4 These achievements all relate to itself and do not suggest a wider influence 
or recognition in the field. The remaining letters are from employees or acquaintances. 
They praise the Petitioner's professionalism and character , but do not name any contribution that 
influenced the oil industry beyond Similarly, the Petitioner's performance ratings and 
awards confirm his value to his employer, but are not indicative of any recognition beyond 
Finally, the Petitioner did not verify that the findings in his internal and industry presentations have 
been adopted or even considered outside While outside experts may have attended his 
conference presentations , the Petitioner did not document citations or other similar reliance on his 
studies outside of Accordingly, the materials relating to his contributions as a petroleum 
engineer are not indicative of an influence in the field as a whole . his national or international 
acclaim , or his standing at the top of the field. 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has performed a critical role for is a large 
company and the record confirms the Petitioner's value to that company as he has 
progressed in responsibilities. His progression and increased responsibilities for however , 
are not indicative of his wider recognition in the field. 
Finally, the Petitioner has documented his salary and the median salaries in his field. While his 
salary exceeds that of petroleum engineers, the Petitioner has progressed past that occupation and 
3 The letter does not include the author' s first name. 
4 
does not define either acronym in this sentence. 
.
Matter of M-B-
has held several managerial positions in the same field . The 2016 Membership Salary Survey 
contains the salaries of not only engineers, but also managers in that field. The mean salary was 
$227,012 for supervisors /superintendents /leads and $27 4,083 for managers /directors. The Petitioner 
has not shown that he has commanded a salary higher than $200,200. Accordingly, not only does 
the Petitioner's salary not meet the requirements for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), it also is not 
indicative of national or international acclaim or standing among the small percentage at the top of 
the field, a field that includes managers. 
III. CONCLUSION 
While the Petitioner submitted the required initial evidence , the record in the aggregate does not 
support a finding that the Petitioner has established the level of acclaim or standing in the field 
required for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-B-, 10# 886794 (AAO Jan. 24, 2018)