dismissed EB-1A Case: Petroleum Reservoir Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-V-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Oflice 
DATE: JUNE 22, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a reservoir management team lead, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in petroleum reservoir engineering. 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, arguing that he meets at least 
three of the criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Mauer of A-V-
The term "extraor dinary ability" refers only to those individu als in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). T he implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5( h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification' s initia l evidence 
requirements . First , a petit ioner can demonstrate a one -time achievemen t (tha t is, a major , 
internation ally recognized award). If tha t petitioner does not submit this evidence , then 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, publish ed material in certain media, and 
scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements , we then consi der the totality of the 
materi al provided in a final merits determination and assess whe ther the reco rd shows susta ined 
nationa l or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individ ual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeav or. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th C ir. 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 de term ination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (O.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp . 2d 1339 
(W.O. Wash. 201 1). This two-step analysis is ·cons istent w ith our holding that the "tru th is to be 
determined not by the quantit y of evidence alone but by its qua lity," as we ll as the princip le that we 
examin e "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, an~ credibilit y, both individually 
and within the conte xt of the totality of the evidence, to determin e whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petiti one r is a reservoir management team lead at Ill 
Ca lifornia. As the Petitioner has not establi shed that he has received a major, 
internati onal ly recognized award, he must satisf y at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)( i)-(x) . . 
A. Evid en tiary Cri ter ia 
The Direct or found t~at the Petitioner mel leading or critical role under the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)( 3)(vii i), and we agree that the Petiti oner's position with fulfill s this criter ion. In 
addition, the Director determined that the Petiti oner sa tisfied high sala ry under the regulation at 8 
C.F. R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) , and we conc ur. The record also demo nstrates that the Petitioner served on 
the _ · - w here he se lecte d technic al papers for 
publications , thereby meeting judging und e r the regulation at 8 C.FR. *· 204.5(h)(3)(i v). 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has estab lished that he meets at least three regu latory criteria , and we 
will evaluate the totality of the evide nce in the context of the final merit s de termination below . 
2 
.
Matt er of A- V-
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requ1s1te initi al evidence , we will evaluate whe-ther he has 
demonstrat ed, by a preponder ance o f the evidence , his sustain ed n ational or interna tiona l acclai m 
and that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor , and that his 
achievem ents have been recogni zed in the field through exten sive documentation. In a final merit s 
determination , we analyze a petitioner's accompli shments and weigh the totality of the ev idence to 
determin e if his successes are sufficient to demon strate that he has ext rao rdinary abilit y in the field 
of ende avor. 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 . In this matt er, we determin e t hat the Peti tioner has not shown his eligibili ty. 
According to the Petition er's curriculum vitae, he obtained his bac hel or' s degr ee in c hemical 
engineering in 2006 from In 
2008, he receiv ed his master's degree in chemical engineering from the - - · 
. 
Most recently in 2014 , he ea rned his mast er of busi ness 
administration from the . In additi o n, t he Pet itioner 
has worked as a reservoir engineer and reservoir man age men t team lead for 1 
and is curr entl y the reservoir man age ment team lead for As mentioned 
above, the Petitioner has reviewed· technical papers and command s a high salary . The reco rd, 
however, doe s not demon strate that his achievem ents are reflective of a "ca reer of acclaimed work in 
the field " as contemplated by Co ngress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 , 59 (Sept. 19, 1990) . 
Regardin g the Petitioner 's judging service, an eva luation of the s ignifi cance of his experience is 
appropriate to determine if such evidence is indic ative· of the extraordinary ability requir ed fo r this 
highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian , 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. As indicated abo ve, the record 
reflects that the Petitioner selected technical pape rs for publi catio n at Although he 
presented a letter from memb er of wh o confirmed his judgin g ex perience , 
did not indicat e the number of pape rs the Petition e r selecte d and how many were 
publish ed. Moreover, whil e the Petitioner claim ed that he parti cipated in "peer ass ists" and worked 
as a "rec ruite r," h~ did not demon strate that they invo lved judging the work of othe rs.2 None theless, 
the Petiti oner did not establish that his judging ex perience is indic ative of the requi red susta ined 
national or international accl aim . See section 203(b) (l)(A)(i) of the Act. Without ev idence that sets 
him apart from others in his field, such as docuni entation that he ha s served in editorial pos itions for 
prestigiou s journals or chair ed technical committ ees for acclaimed assoc iations , the record does not 
show that his judging place s him in that small percentage at the very top of his field. See 8 C. F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
1 The Petitioner indicated that is an independent publicly traded corporation that resulted from a stock spin oil from 
• The Petitioner offered 
a letter from 
from 
3 
·, who described "peer assists," and a letter 
who explaine
d the role of a ·'recruiter." 
.
MatterofA-V-
Moreover, as indicated above, the Petitioner has performed in a critical role for , contributing to 
its succ esses. However, the Pet itioner did not demonstrate that his emp loyment with , as well 
as is refl ective of, or has result ed in, widespread acclaim from his field or ·that he is considered 
to be at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Moreover, the record docs 
not demonstrate that the Petitioner has held any other leading or critical roles for org anizat ions or 
establishments with distinguish ed reputations, showing sustained national or international acclaim. 
See section 203(b )(l )(A) of the Act. 
Although the Petitioner earns a high salary among others in his field, he has not shown that his 
earnings are at a level reflecting national or international acclaim or that they plac e him among the 
small perc entage at the top of his field. See sect ion 203(b )(1 )(A)( i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) . The recprd as a whole, including the other evidence discu ssed, does not establish the 
Petitioner' s eligibility for the benefit sought. . The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa 
classification , intended for individuals already a·t the top of their respective fields. Further, USCIS 
has long held that even athletes performing at the major league leve l do not automatically meet the 
"ext raord inary ability" standard. Maller of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953 , 954 (Assoc. Comm ' r 1994) . 
While the Petition er need not establish that there is .no one more accomplished to qualify for the 
classification sought, we find the record insufficient to demon strate that he has sustained nationa l or 
international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. 
Beyond the three criteria that the Petitioner satisfied, we consider add itional documentati on in the 
record in order to determine whether the totality of the evidence dem onstra tes eligibility. Here, for 
the reasons discussed below , we find that the ev idence neither sat isfies the requir emen ts of any 
further evidentiary criteria nor contributes to an overall finding that the Petition er has sustained 
. national or international acclaim and is among the small percentag e at the top of his field. 
The record reflects that besto wed its "Excellence Award" on the Petitioner from 2012- 2014. 
The Petitione r, however, did not demonstrate that these awards are nationally or interna tionally 
recogniz ed for excellence in the field or that they indicate he "is one of that small percentage who 
[has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). There is no 
indication that the Petitioner faced significant competition from throughou t his fiel d, rather tha n 
limited to employees at . USCIS has long held that even athletes perfo rming at t he major league 
level do not automatically meet the statutory standards for immigrant classification as an alien of 
"extraordinary ability." Matt er of Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954. 
The Petitioner also contends that he has served as a board member of and was invited to 
participate in a partnership betwe en and , to devel op lead ers for the 
success of 3 However , the Petitioner did not establish that his memb e rships requir e ou tstanding 
3 The Petitioner provided a leller from . . , who invited the Petitio ner to 
particip ate in ; however, the record docs no t indicate that he part i cipated in the program. 
4 
.
Matter ofA-V -
achievem ents , as judged by recog nized nation al or international experts .4 As the Petitione r has not 
shown, for example, that he is a member of assoc iations that limi t membership to individuals in 
petrol eum reservoir engin eeri ng wi th renown ed endeavors, his membership ev idence does not 
contribute to a finding that he has sustained nation al or internationa l acclaim. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
As it relat es to published material, the Petition er previously claim ed at the initial filling tha t his 
drafting sta ndards, templates , a nd presen tation s while emplo yed at and shou ld be 
consid ered as published material about his work. Howev er, the regulati on at 8 C.F.R . 
§ 204 .5(h)(3)(iii) requires publi shed material abo ut a p etitioner relating to his work in professional 
or major trade publications or other major med ia rather than intern al company written wo rk. Here , 
the Petitioner has not shown , for example, that he received press or me dia coverage, showi ng 
sustained national or internati onal acclaim necessa ry for this highl y r es tricti ve classific ation or 
indicative of a level of succ ess consistent with being among "that small percentage who [has] risen 
to the very top of the fiel d of endeavor." See section 203(b)(l)( A) of the Act and 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
In addition, the Petition er argues that his presentations and technic al paper s a uthored while 
employed with and as well as a propo sed research paper while a studen t at q ualify 
as authoring scholarly articl es. However, in order to sati sfy the regul ation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h) (3)(v i), the Petitioner must demonstrat e the "scholarly" nature of the articles. A sc holarly 
article shou ld be written for " learned" persons in the tield. "Learned" is detined as having or 
demonstr ating profound knowl edge or scholarship .5 Here , the record does not show that the 
Petitioner 's presentations and work-related product s are scholarly in nature. Furthermore, he did not 
demonstr ate that they were publi shed in prof ess ional or major trade publication s or ot her m ajor 
media. Simil arly, while the Petitioner present ed an abst ract of a proposed resea rch p aper, he did not 
show that it was ever complet ed or published. Regardless, the Petiti oner has not esta blished that 
this publication record is consi stent with being amo ng the small percentage at the top of the field or 
having a "career of acclaim ed work. " H.R. Rep . No. at 59. [n addition , he has not demons trate d that 
his public ations reflect the required sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b )(I )(A) of the Act. The ·comm entary for the proposed regulations impl eme nting sec tion 
203(b )(I )(A)(i) of the Act prov ides that the " intent of Congress that a very high stan dard be set for 
aliens of ex traordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petition er t o present 
more extensive documentati on than that requir ed" for lesser class iticatio ns. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703 , 
30704 (July 5, 1991). · 
4 The record does not contain the bylaws or other evidence showing the memhcrship requirements for or 
5 See USCI S Policy Memoran dum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form /-140 
Petitions; Rev
isions to the Adjudi cator 's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJJ-14 9 (Dec. 22, 20 10), 
https://www.us cis.gov/policymanuat/HTM IJPolicyMa nual. html. 
5 
.
Matter of A-V-
In addition, as authoring scholarly articles is inherent to many scientific fields, the citation history or 
other evidence of the influence of his articles is an important 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 would provide 
solid evidence that his work has been recognized and that others 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. On the other hand, few or no citations of an article authored by the Petitioner may 
indicate that his work has gone largely unnoticed by his field. Here, the Petitioner did not establish 
that his work has been cited outside of his employers, nor did he otherwise demonstrate a level of 
interest in his work commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the top of his 
field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Further, while citations are not the only way to gauge the importance or recogmt10n of an 
individual 's work, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner's work has been 
considered significant and garnered wide acclaim in the field. Again, the Petitione r presented 
evidence showing that he made presentations related to his employment. Similar to his written 
work, the Petitioner did not establish that his presentations garnered interest or accla im in his field. 
While the Petitioner's recommendation letters confirm the Petitioner's contributions to and 
. they do not show his original contributions of major significance in the f ield. For instance, 
. - - - , discussed how the Petitioner's ' and 
hydraulic fracking influenced s successes in the and Mr. 
letter does not show that the Petitioner's contributions to and have been of 
major significance to the overall field or that he has garnered attention at a level among that small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)( 2).6 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner ~as not established his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. ' 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-V-, ID# "1409864 (AAO June 22, 20"18) 
6 Although we discuss a sampling of his recommendation letters, we have reviewed and considered cadi one.