dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences And Business

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~nted 
invasion of personal privacy 
pUBLIC COpy 
" .,.' 
. ' ", .', 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and lmmigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Wasilim!lon. DC 20529·2090 
u.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
' .. 
DATE: FEB Z 3 2012 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b )(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 11 S3(b )(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any.further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.ER. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 da~s of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Tinank you, . 
~
., :'1# fi, 
.
. s: 011' ~-;:.:l. .. , 
", . \:::'4~ 
" '.~ ~~ ~~ '.~ .. "...., 'lI: 
.·~erry Rhe" . ;~. 
1."'_,., .... 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office· 
www.uscis.gov 
, .. 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences and bu~iness. The director determined that the 
petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation 
and sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) tllrough 
(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory 
categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner meets the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) - (vi), (viii), and (ix). For the reasons discussed below, the AAO will uphold 
the director's decision. 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(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 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
\ 
,. 
--Page 3 -
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101
st 
Cong., 2d . 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. [d. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2).' 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements 
must be established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of 
evidence: 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of.the aI'ien'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; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation; 
(iv) 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 specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles III the field, in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
/ 
Page 4 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales, 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given eviqentiary criterion. I With respect to the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustaiilednational or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been 'recognized in the field of. 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by )he Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 
at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
I Specifically, the court stated that theAAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
·.i \. 
Page 5 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on June 11, -20 1 0, seeks' to classify the petitIoner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as an engineer in the petroleum industry specializing in deepwater well 
completion and intervention. At the time' of filing, the petitioner was working for Shell 
International Exploration anp Production Inc. as a Senior Staff Production Engineer. The 
petitioner has submitted documentati9n pertaining to the following categories of evidence under 
. 2 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
submitted a certificate issued by 
to the petitioner stating: "Y ou and your colleagues of the BC-I0 
team have been selected as winners of the 'Most Enterprising Team' award in Wells for your 
achievements in 2008. The award is presented to the Wells team that delivers exceptional 
performance results whilst creating a sustainable performance culture." The petitioner also 
submitted a Febru 11, 2002 e-mail from his then superv' 
, complimenting the petitioner for his "contribution to the 
" The preceding documentation reflects internal company 
recognition by the petitioper's employer rather than nationally o~ internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. The director discussed the evidence 
submitted for this criterion and found, that the petitioner failed to establish his eligibility. On 
appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this criterion or offer additional 
arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda v. u.s. Att'y 
Gen., 401 P.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 
WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiff's claims to be 
abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Documentation of the alien'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. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for 
admission to membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a 
given field, minimum education or experience, standardized ~est scores, grade point average, 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 6 
recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall 
prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
In response to the petitioner submitted evidence of his 
membership in There is no documentary evidence 
(such as bylaws or rules of admission) showing that the requires outstanding achievements 
of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this criterion or offer 
additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda, 401 
F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9 .. Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the 
petitioner and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers.3 
The petitioner submitted an article coauthored by the petitioner and four others in the April 2010 
issue of World Oil entitled "Successful drilling and completion at BC-lO using surface BOP 
system." This article constitutes material written by the petitioner about his own work rather 
than published material about himself. Thus, the article does not meet the plain language 
requirements of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The regulations include a separate 
criterion for authorship of scholarly articles at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The AAO will fully 
address the petitioner's authorship of scholarly articles under the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The petitioner submitted an article in Oil & Gas Journal entitled "Special Report: Shell developing 
heavy oil in deep water off Brazil." The date and author of the article were not provided as required 
by the plain language of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Further, the article is not about 
the petitioner. The article lists a technical paper (#112788)" presented by the petitioner and five 
others at the March 2008 International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC)/SPE Drilling 
3 Even with nationally-circulated ne~spapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, 
Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
0; '. 
Page 7 
Conference in its "References" section, but the article does not discuss the petitioner. The plain 
language of this regulatory criterion requires that the published material be "about the alien." See, 
e.g., Accord Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8,2008) (upholding 
,a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). 
The petitioner submitted an article in the January/February 2008 issue of Drilling Contractor 
entitled looks to the cutting-edge of today, plans for the 
challenges of tomorrow," but the author of the article was not identified as required by the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The article (beginning on page 90) 
includes the abstracts for each of the ninety technical papers being presented at the 2008 IADC/SPE 
Drilling Conference in Orlando. The . of the article in 
the s technical paper 
. 1,900 m of Water" (starting on page 115) is identical to the abstract 
for the paper written by the petitioner and his coauthors. Thus, the content of the article in Drilling 
Contractor devoted to the petitioner's work was simply a duplicate of his own technical paper 
abstract (#112788) and not the result of independent media coverage about the petitioner. As 
previously discussed, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published 
material be "about the alien" relating to his work rather than simply about the petitioner's work. 
Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) relating to -outstanding researchers or professors pursuant to 
section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Act. It cannot be credibly asserted that the preceding material m 
Drilling Contractor is "about" the petitioner. 
The petitioner submitted a comprehensive list of abstracts for the "2009 SPE/IADC Drilling 
Conference" in the J anuary/February 2009 issue of The list includes an 
"Editor's note" stating: "The following abstracts represent papers ... that were scheduled as of 6 
January to be presented at the 2009 SPElIADC Drilling Conference .... " The abstract for the 
~hnical paper 
_ in 1,900 m of Water" appears on page 96 and is five sentences in length. The 
'material in the January/February 2009 issue of is a summary of the 
petitioner's technical paper abstract and not independent media coverage about the 
petitioner. Again, it cannot be credibly asserted that the preceding material in 
is "about" the' petitioner. 
The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that four of his technical papers are available 
for download via the OnePetro online library operated by the SPE. The documentation 
submitted from the OnePetro website constitutes material written by the petitioner about his own 
work rather than published material about himself. Thus, the submitted material does not meet 
the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
!Jv.H1U'Hvl submitted copies of five technical papers 
that cite to his work. Two of the citing papers, •••• 
_ include self-citations by the petitioner'S coauthors ' 
The petitioner also submitted an article in 
developing heavy oil in deep water off Brazil" that specifically references his work. 
'; "--Page 8 
cite to the petitioner's work are primarily about the authors' own work, and are not about the 
petitioner or even his work. As previously discussed, the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be "about the alien." With regard to 
this regulatory criterion, a footnoted reference to the alien's work without evaluation is of minimal 
probative value. The submitted papers do not qiscuss the merits of the petitioner's work, his 
standing in the field, any significant impact that his work has had on the field, or any other 
information so. as to be considered published material about the petitioner as required by this 
criterion. Moreover, the AAO notes that the submitted papers citing to the petitioner's work 
similarly referenced numerous other authors. The papers citing to the petitioner's work are more 
relevant to the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and will be addressed there. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
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. 
I..IvllLlU'l1vl submitted documentation indicating that he performed internal company reviews 
the 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petltloner submitted additional 
documentation regarding his work as a completions reviewer on the 
ect. The 's documentation included a December 22,2003 e-mail from 
stating: 
The was discovered in 2002. The field was acquired as part of the 
Enterprise acquisition. holds 58% and is Operator;_ has 25% 
and _17%. The Agreement] is favorable to the Operator and 
CVX do [sic] not require partner approval to proceed with key phases of the development 
planning. This limits" leverage to mostly attempting to influence the operator. 
also submitted a July 12, 2010 letter from 
who states that he was employed 
y with the petitioner from 2000 - 2003. _ further states: 
On a given project, each expert will review his/her discipline of the work of others on the 
projects. So, for example, Completions is tthe petitioner's] area and he would be the sole 
reviewer for Completions. Much depends on these internal peer reviews; if the experts are 
wrong, the cost to the company can be many millions of dollars. 
Page 9 
The AAO finds that the petitioner's 
projects and f~r the company's 
a completions reviewer for internal _ 
meets the 
plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.ER. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in ihe field. 
In the director's decision, he determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
regulatory criterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires 
"[e]vidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field." Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see 
whether it rises' to the level of original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions "of 
major significance in the field." The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it 
has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 
1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, '343 F.3d 619,626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15,2003). 
IJ'-""'V,,'-" submitted evidence indicating that he has coauthored several conference papers 
Many 
professional fields regularly hold conferences and symposIa to present new 
findings, and to network with other professionals. These conferences are promoted and 
sponsored by professional associations, trade groups, businesses, educational institutions, and 
government agencies. Participation in such events, however, does not equate to an original 
contribution of major significance in the field. Publication and presentations are not sufficient 
evidence under 8 C.ER. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 E3d 1115 (9th Cir. 
2010). In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffIrmed its holding that the AAO did not abuse its discretion 
in finding that the alien had not demonstrated contributions of major signifIcance. 596 E3d at 1122. 
Thus, there is no presumption that every published article or conference presentation is a 
contribution of major significance; rather, the petitioner must document the actual impact of his 
article or presentation. The petitioner did provide evidence of a few independent cites to his 
presented work. The number of independent citations per conference paper, however, is minimal. 
The petitioner's citation record, by itself, is not indicative of original contributions of major 
significance in the field. There is no evidence showing that any of the petitioner's conference 
presentations have been frequently cited by independent engineering professionals or have 
otherwise significantly impacted the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits documentation indicating that four of his conference papers are 
available for download from the OnePetro online library by the SPE. According to 
their "Download History" since 2007, paper was downloaded 351 times, paper 
was downloaded 294 times, paper was downloaded 77 times, and 
paper _ was downloaded 109 times. The not established that this level of 
readership is indicative of original contributions of major signifIcance in the field. 
'; -, 
--Page 10 
The petitioner also submitted letters of support discussing his work. . 
in ___ 
states that 
Kingdom. 
In March 1995, [the petitioner] managed the offshore platform installation, which 
resulted in the "World[']s First offshore large bore coiled tubing deployed electrical 
submersible pump (ESP) Completion," which was successfully commissioned in well 
AA-03S1 on Auk in Scotland. The Artificially Lifted well boosted platform production 
from 4,000 barrels of oil per day (bopd) to 12,000 bopd. ' 
_ has been recognized by the industry as an excellent example of focused 
OperatorNendor Project co-operation to extend the ESP installation envelope. Use of 
coiled tubing run ESP's in this mode, with production uP. the coiled tubing, has potential 
for a large impact on minimizing prime rig and derrick ,time for installation & workover 
and the overall life cycle cost of ESP fields. 
_ was a first class example of new technology application. Importance of 
detailed planning and dry runs to achieve success in the field was demons 
(Co-Authored by [the petitioner] and presented at 
6th May 1996). 
There is no evidence ~howing that the preceding conference paper is frequently cited by others in 
the field or that the petitioner's work for this project otherwise constitutes to an original 
contribution of major significance in the field. 
continues: 
_ was tasked with developing the Gas Project to convert the Philippine nation's 
reliance upon diesel combustion for power generation to a cleaner natural gas solution. 
,/ * * * 
[The petitioner] was hand picked by the team to fulfill the position of 
* * * 
[The petitioner] developed the detailed Completi9n design in Houston, tendered the 
Completion hardware & services in Houston, and then relocated to Manila to recruit staff, 
develop contracts and procure & manage equipmen't. Traditional permaneht downhole 
gauges (PDPG)s display a history of early failures._ sought 7 years or more 
Page 11 
service life from _ Accordingly [the petitioner]· tendered the _under a 
unique "Pay for Data" contract. The contracting method tied the original equipment 
man\lfacturer to hardware execution & service performance. The Completion hardware 
execution was also tied to a "Right First Time" incentive element. 
* * * 
The wells were perforated and flowed gas -to the rig at an unprecedented 120 million 
standard cubic feet per day (mmscf/day), a sizeable flowrate for a rig temporary welltest 
spread, The 5 High Rate Gas Wells were executed on time and within budget. 
The achievement was _ first Deepwater High Rate Gas Wells· using Horizontal 
Christmas _ Trees and Large Bore Corrosion Resistant Alloys (CRA) tubulars & 
accessories. 
Of the _ installed and working in _ installation over half are still 
performing and have yielded in excess of 8 years service which has allowed the 
pro~uction team to defer Phase 2 field infill work offering considerable project saving. 
While the petitioner's work for the project was important to his company's 
drilling operations for that particular project, there is no evideJ,1ce demonstrating that his original 
work for the project was recognized beyond the company such that his work constitutes original 
c~ntributions of major significance in the field. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather than 
limited to one's employer or immediate projects. With regard to the petitioner's occupation, the 
Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), 2010-11 Edition (accessed at 
www.bls.gov/oco on February 8, 2012 and incorporated into the record of proceedings), states: 
Petroleum engineers design methods for extracting oil and gas from deposits below the 
earth. . . .. They design equipment and processes to achieve the maximum profitable 
recovery of oil and gas. Because only a small proportion of oil and gas in a reservoir 
flows out under natural forces, petroleum engineers develop and use various enhanced 
recovery methods, including injecting water, chemicals, gases, or steam into an oil 
reservoir to force out more of the oil and doing computer-controlled drilling or fracturing 
to connect a larger area of a reservoir to a single well. Because even the best techniques 
in use today recover only a portion of the oil and gas in g reservoir, petroleum engineers 
research and develop technology and methods for increasing the recovery of these 
resources and lowering the cost of drilling and production operations. 
(Emphasis added.) See http://www.bls.gov/oco/pdf/ocos049.pdf. . If the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) is to have any meaning, it must be presumed that merely performing routine 
duties inherent to one's employment is not necessarily indicative of original scientific or 
business-related contributions of major significance in the field. 
Page 12 
further states: 
\ 
[The petitioner's] project achievements from 2005 through 2010 have been' 
where he engineered 
of a unique deepwater completion system that employs 
Preventer (BOP) technology from a_ Offshore Drilling Rig. 
* * * 
to provide Completions 
expertise to 
* * * 
Working largely solitary in the [the petitioner] single handedly developed 
the . through "Basis of Design" and throughout securing of 
contracts. 
* * * 
design addressed a number of 
around land 6ff, orientation and testing. The 
would limit the traditional features offered by a regular Subsea BOP. The Completion 
design incorporated a unique 1" umbilical hose run with the . ure riser to 
seabed to facilitate testing & diagnostics. The utilized a deep 
set Fluid Loss valve as primary barrier for upper completion deployment through the 
Surface BOP. . . 
[The petitioner] introduced a discrete innovative barrier technique, applying a swell' 
packer, run with the upper completion to seal off and provide a secondary barrier below 
the gravel pack port closure sleeve. 
* * * 
[The petitioner's] design was tb.e first time a swell element has been used in such a 
format. . .. When the well produces hydrocarbons, the swell element increases in 
diameter and forms an additional seal below the port closure sleeve, isolating the 
potential leak path over lifecycle. 
The use of a swell element in this manner was a first to the industry and the simple yet 
unique approach has significantly de-risked the space out operation, and dis-associated 
tubing hanger land-off from tailpipe interfacing. . .. The net result was also the easing of 
the tally of the space out operation, which would traditionally have been particularly 
precise & onerous. 
\ . 
., 
Page 13 
does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's deepwater completion 
system employing Surface BOP technology has significantly impacted the industry or otherwise 
constitutes an original contribution of major significance in the field. To satisfy the criteriori 
relating to original contributions of major significance, the petitioner must demonstrate not only that 
his work is novel and useful to his company, but also that it was of major significance in the field. 
[The petitioner] transferred to the 
states that 
1989 to'2004" and that he previously worked with 
oversight to a new venture with 
concept for the Auk Platform. 
*' *' * 
[The petitioner] provided unique completion discipline expertise & Project Management 
in developing the 2 7/8" & novel accessories. Much of the 
challenge focused upon pressure tight connections, cable clamping, a tower method of 
deployment and handling of the inflexible coil. 
* * * 
[The petitioner] managed the onshore trials and testing of new technology during the 
preparation phase and during the offshore phase provided direct supervision & oversight 
to the execution. 
* * *' 
The culmination of the project delivered the 
_ deployed electrical submersible (ESP)' completion. 
successfully, the platform output was ~ignificantly boosted. 
* * * 
The success established that offer production up the coiled 
tubing, can reduce ESP lifecycle cost and have significant impact on mature artificially 
lifted assets. 
* * * 
The installation ... was documented & published including an 
co-authored by [the petitioner]. 
., 
Page 14 
There is no evidence showing that the preceding conference paper is frequently cited by others in 
the field, that technologies originated by the petitioner are being widely applied by others in the 
offshore drilling industry, or that his findings oth~rwise constitute original contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
_continues: 
· .. selected [the petitioner] in the position of 
the Deepwater Completions. 
* * * 
He worked largely in isolation within 
Completion expertise; . from the 
he designed the 
The Completion inCluded exotic downhole completion commodity and tubular materials 
required to tolerate the high anticipation H2S levels through start up and full well 
lifecycle of 25 years. 
Within the industry at this time traditional permanent downhole production gauges 
(PDPG)s were observed to suffer from early failures. 
* * * v 
To tackle permanent downhole production gauge _ longe~e petitioner] 
tendered the _ contract with a approach. _ performance 
& lifecycle linked the original equipm~nt manufacturer to the hardware installation & 
service life. [The petitioner] also contracted the Completion hardware execution in a 
similar incentive element with the installation also tied to a "Right First Time" 
installation. He sourced specialist personnel from within the Completion contract to 
ensure offshore staff domiciled in Manila and were tied to project loyalty and continuity. 
* * * 
When I left "to join another operator, [the petitioner] had been selected to join the 
screening and preparing for Concept Selection. The 
included the Concept Selection 
milestone, Detailed Design and execution which concluded with delivering a unique 
deepwater completion system that employs 13 5/8" Surface Blow Out Preventer (BOP) 
technology from a Generation 3 Rig. 
* * * 
handedly designed the_ 
"Basis of Design" through 
i . 
., 
Page 15 
the formal Design milestone securing contracts and sourcing staff. [The petitioner] 
provided Completions discipline expertise to early screening to evaluate & finalize the 
options leading to Concept Selection. The Detailed Design phase required development 
and assurance of uni technology that had never been applied to subsea 
Completions. 
_ discusses the petitioner's work for_ but he does not provide specific examples of 
industrial or commercial implementation of the petitioner's work beyond the petitioner's 
employer. For example, _ does not indicate that _ has patented, licensed, or 
extensively marketed the petitioner's specific technology. Thus, the impact of the 
petitioner' technology on the field at large is not documented in the record. . 
submitted an article entit1e~moves_ forward" (posted on the websites of 
as evi~f the adoption of his work by The 
Venture Manager for _ but the article does not mention 
the petitioner. The article states: 
The system was designed to bring 
versatility, installation savings, and operational efficiency to ultra , high 
pressure fields. Developed by-••• IIIIiI!!!IIIIIII ..... the is under 
construction in Rio de Janeiro for use on_ 
* * * 
The _ development process involved design, manufacturing, quality assurance, 
and procurement reviews from each of its major centers. The result is a globally 
accepted system that can be manufactured at any FMC Technologies facility in the 
world. 
Already, the_is a success in the offshore industry. First commercial orders have 
been received for in Brazil and the Gulf of Mexico, 
respectively, as well as a lO-year supply agreement for their operations in Asia-Pacific. 
Additionally,_has placed orders for its in Congo. 
For its initial development, _ worked with_to provide solutions 
for four major projects in d~e world. . .. The unique development 
saved_ in manufacturing costs. Because of that success, _has contracted for 
the installation of additional_ in the near future. 
Because of its flexibility, is pursuing use of the_in shallow 
water from a jackup rig. It is expected that this market could add another 20 to 40 trees 
per year in sales volume and revolutionize the use of subsea systems in shallow water. 
" 
Page 16 
On appeal, counsel argues that the prece~icle "shows that took technology 
proven during the design and execution of_ by [the petitioner's] completions." 
The AAO notes that the article focuses on the commercial success of_ 
interest in the not the petitioner's 
technology. There is no documentary evidence indicating that 
the company has utilized or placed orders for specific surface developed by the 
petitioner. Regardless, even if the petitioner were to demonstrate utilization of his 
original~technology, the AAO cannot conclude that the technology's application by 
a single company outside of his employer is indicative of a contribution of major significance in 
the field. 
states: 
most recent encounter with [the petitioner's] work was on the 
in Basin Brazil, where _ was planning to develop a 
in order to exploit the lower cost Generation 3 rig 
rates and push the envelope of Generation 3 rig performance from 1,OOOm traditional 
waterdepth capability to a much deeper envel~f 2,OOOm by use of 
. company was invited by_ to evaluate acquiring an interest in 
* * * 
My company decided not to acquire the interest offered as the wide range of new 
technologies planned to be used in the development increased the risk of project delays 
and cost overruns. . '-
[The petitioner] was selected as the for screening technologies in Front 
End~ and Design, to develop 
the __ Detailed Design and developed the "Basis DesIgn. 
design through· scrutiny for effectiveness in installation, operability and lifecycle, 
executed the completion Installations and handed the wells over to the host 
asset for production. 
* * * 
The Project honored its First Oil milestone and has delivered on time and within budget. 
••••• does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's surface BOP design is 
being utilized by others throughout the field· or otherwise constitutes an original contribution of 
major significance in the field. As previously discussed, the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the petitioner's original contributions be "of major 
significance in the field" rather than limited to his particular employer. 
.. 
Page 17 
I joined the 
[th~had been 
the_ 
* * * 
[The petitioner] performed the formal design review in the Philippines and transferred to 
Manila to become a senior member of my 
[The petitioner] was 
strategy. He created a 
"Right First Time" execution 
method of remuneration for the 
contract. 
* * * 
innovative contracting 
based upon a 
for Data" 
does not provide specific examples how the petitioner's contracting strategy based 
Time" execution performance and a "Pay for Data" method of remuneration has 
impacted the industry beyond the petitioner's employer. There is no documentary evidence 
showing that the petitioner's contracting methods have been applied throughout the industry or 
otherwise equate to original business-related contributions of major significance in the field. 
states: 
I ... encountered [the petitioner] when, as a 
I was seconded to the in the Philippines to 
~ise and execution support. [The petitioner] had been engaged with the 
_ in Houston to perform analysis & Detailed Design of the Permanent Downhole 
~V'HL'H ... L'·'- 'H and develop the_interfaces. [The petitioner] moved to Manila to join 
develop contracts and recruit personnel. 
* * * 
with the Completion and reside near reserVOlf ~t 
to provide data over the lifecyc1e of the well. 
\ 
I 
sought long term performance for 
•• m·e deployed integral 
temperature and pressure 
Within the industry _ were observed to suffer from early failure and a short 
lifespan, which would leave production and surveillance operators compromised without 
the ability to monitor the effects on well pressures. 
'. 
Page 18 
[The petitioner] developed a novel contract that tied the vendor to 
an incentive-based installation and remuneration over an extended lifecycle. He 
developed an incentive-based element to the permanent downhole completion contract on 
the premise of "Right First time" installation, and developed an integrated service 
contract for commissioning and Welltest. He provided Completion discipline input to the 
selection and tendering of the Subsea Test Tree, which was used to deploy the downhole 
completion. 
[The petitioner] developed a manpower strategy where the completion and the welltest 
vendor provided offshore specialists to support the completion installation through 
project duration. This novel method of staffing the team with specialists in this manner 
assured a depth of Completion and Welltest, hands on capability, and the intimacy within 
the operation to thoroughly plan prime time and concurrent rig activities. 
The Gas Well Project was executed on time and within budget. 
indicates that the petitioner performed his duties admirably for 
and developed a novel contract, but he does not provide specific 
examples of how the petitioner's contracting methodology is being utilized by others in the 
industry or otherwise constitutes an original business-related contribution of major significance 
in the field. 
_states: 
I very closely with [the petitioner] from 2000 - 2003, when I was seconded as a 
was 
* * * 
[The petitioner's] role 
y together. 
[The petitioner] had refined the to an incredibly 
uncomplicated level for simplicity and reliability; the near metal to metal system had 
removed traditional complexities such as polished bore receptacle (elastomeric sealing), 
had employed a Corrosion Resistance Alloy (CRA) "envelope" of protective casing 
between key downhole components exposed to petroleum fluids, the upper production 
packer and liner packer had allowed for lifecycle workover, maintaining a full 6.00 inch 
"monobore" access from top to bottom along the 12,000 foot length, and had 
accommodated high production rate and vibration mitigation in selecting Safety Valve 
considerations. 
* * * 
Page 19 
Both contractually and commercially, [the petitioner] was also innovative. He introduced 
factors to achieve this including incentivising the completion contract, 
contract for 
consultant staff, and a tremendous effort in team among the main 
and_ stakeholders. The high rate gas 
was extremely successful, and the experience and drive of [the petitioner] was 
absolutely critical to the success. 
_ discusses the petitioner's work for the including 
the petitioner's introduction of the but he does not provide 
specific examples of how the petitioner's work is being utilized by others in the field beyond 
their employer. Once again, a contribution to .the petitioner's employer is not necessarily an 
original contribution of major significance to the field at large. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a second letter from 
•••• stating: 
involved in leading the development of the industry 
capability in the area of prior role he has also pioneered 
well completion techniques. In total he has three World Firsts to his credit: 
• The 
• The were a 
World First. 
• The was a World First. 
No team had performed such a design and execution before and [the petitioner] was 
responsible for the analyses and design, detail design, or execution, and in the case of 
_screening, concept selection, detailed design and execution. '\ 
In addition, commercially, his contracting initiative was a ~ 
•••• and "Right First contractmg initiative was a _ first for _ 
So in the business sense, this is pioneering. The initiative proved 
considerably successful than half of the permanent downhole gauges 
successfully installed in . still functioning, exceeding expectation by a 
number of years. These systems have saved _ millions of dollars in being able to 
defer the initiation of Phase 2 
* * * 
[The petitioner's] work extends the water depth capability of the older, •••••• 
rigs for deeper. water development. By increasing the rig 
with High Pressure reduced diameter marine 
the weight of the hardware connecting the rig to the 
'.. J 
Page 20 
seabed hardware can be significantly reduced, allowing the rig to accommodate a deeper 
water depth drilling & completion. 
_ states that the 
were all "a s well completion projects may have 
been original, there is· no documentary evidence demonstrating that his engineering techniques rise 
to the level of contributions of "major significance" in the field. There is no evidence showing 
that the petitioner's conference papers relating to the preceding projects are frequently cited by 
independent experts in the field, that his methodologies are being widely implemented by others 
in the petroleum engineering field, or that his work otherwise equates to original contributions of 
major significance in the field. 
states: 
There are two to three individuals, worldwide in the discipline of completions 
engineering that understand how to make this technology work in _ [The 
petitioner] is the in this group and he undoubtedly has a unique set of skills 
that can deli lutions. He has the knowledge and skills that will allow 
the offshore industry in the U.S. to introduce a technology that will allow offshore 
deepwater operations to proceed in a more environmentally safe and Sound manner. 
comments on the petitioner's unique technological knowledge and engineering 
skills. Assuming the petitioner's skills and knowledge are unique, the classification sought was 
not designed merely to alleviate skill shortages in a given field. In fact, that issue properly falls 
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor through the alien employment certification 
process. See Matter of New York State Dep't. ofTransp., 22 I&N Dec. 215,221 (Comm'r 1998). 
It is not enough to be skillful and knowledgeable and to have others attest to those talents. An 
alien must have demonstrably impacted his field in order to meet this regulatory criterion. 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is 
ultimately responsibleJor making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N 
Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence 
as to "fact"). Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the 
petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, 
letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of an engineer who has made original 
contributions of major significance. Without additional, specific evidence showing that the 
petitioner's work has been unusually influential, 'widely applied throughout his field, or has 
Page 21 
otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major significance, the AAO cannot conclude that 
I 
he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien IS authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
that he coauthored five conference papers 
The petitioner 
paper states: "Contents of- the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by. the Society of 
Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members." The petitioner's _ paper states: 
"Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed the Offshore Technology 
Conference and are subjectto correction .... " The petitioner's 
"Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by 
•••••••• and are subject to correction . . .." The 
petitioner's paper states: "Contents of the have not been reviewed by the 
and are 
subject to correction .... " The petitioner's paper states: "Contents of the paper, as 
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to 
correction .... " There is no documentary evidence establishing that the preceding papers were "in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media." . 
The petitioner also submitted an article coauthored 
2010 issue of World Oil entitled using 
_ but there is no circulation evidence showing that World Oil qualifies as a maj,or trade 
publication or some other form of major media. In addition to the preceding deficiency, the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires the petitioner's "authorship of 
scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publfcations or other major media" 
[emphasis added] in the plural. The use of the plural is consistent with the statutory requirement 
for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)( 1 )(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 c.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a single high salary. 
When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular within the plural, it expressly does so 
as when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form 
of "letter(s)." Thus, the AAO can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has 
meaning. In a different context, federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret 
significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation. See Maramjaya v. 
USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. 
Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the 
regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). 
Ther:efore, even if the petitioner were to establish that his authorship of the single article in 
World Oil meets the elements of this regulatory criterion, which he has not, the plain language ,of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires evidence of the petitioner's authorship of 
scholarly articles in more than one major publication. 
'. ., 
Page 22 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner initially submitted white papers he prepared for Shell and copies of his internal 
company presentations. As previously discussed, the also submitted evidence of his 
internal company recognition (such as the 
_ and letters of support discussing his projects 
who served as the 
discussed the petitioner's role 
The petitioner failed to 
how his positions as 
fell within the company's general hierarchy. A conclusion that the 
petitioner played a leading or critical role for his employer simply by competently working in a 
position that needed to be filled would render this criterion meaningless. Specifically, it can be 
presumed that employers do not typically hire individuals to fill roles that serve no purpose for 
the employer; yet not every employee for a distinguished organization meets this criterion. In 
determining whether the petitioner's role was critical the AAO looks at his performance in that 
role and how it contributed to the organization's activities beyond what is normally expected of 
its engineering staff. The petitioner's evidence does not demonstrate how his positions 
differentiated him from the other engineering staff let alone the company's 
senior managers and corporate executives such as The evidence 
submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he was responsible for success or 
standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role." 
Aside from the preceding deficiencies, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requiris evidence that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role 
for distinguished "organizations or establishments" in the plural. As previously discussed, the use 
of the plural is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 
203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Therefore, even if the petitioner were to submit supporting 
documentary evidence showing that his role for Shell meets the elements of this criterion, which 
he has not, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence 
of a leading or critical role for more than one distinguished organization or establishment. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
submitted his 2009 Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, from 
reflecting earnings of $711,359.54. The AAO concurs with the 
'. 
Page 23 
director's finding that the salary earned by the beneficiary in 2009 meets the plain language 
requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
Summary 
The AAO concurs with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate 
his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements 
necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
The AAO will next conduct a final merits determination that considers all of the evidence in the 
context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that 
the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of 
endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In the 
present matter, many of the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have 
already been addressed in the AAO's discussion of the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (iii), (v), (vi), and (viii). 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), 
this decision has already addressed why the petitioner's evidence does not rise to the level of 
nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field. The petitioner's 
receipt of internal recognition from. his employer is not indicative of or consistent with sustained 
national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that he is one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of his field. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), 
as previously discussed, there is no evidence showing that the SPE requires outstanding 
achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the 
petitioner's field. The petitioner has not established that his SPE membership is indicative of or 
consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that he is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field. 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R . 
. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), all of .the petitioner's submissions were deficient in at least one of the 
regulatory requirements such as not including an author, not being about the petitioner, or not 
being accompanied by evidence that they were published in major trade publications or other 
major media. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the material he submitted is indicative 
of or consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that he is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field. 
'. , 
Page 24 
In regard to the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iv), the nature of the petitioner's 
judging experience is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is indicative of his 
recognition beyond his own· circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. The 
petitioner submitted evidence of his reviewer for internal_ 
projects and for the company's Being 
assigned to review projects for _ as part of his job responsibilities is not evidence of 
"national or international acclaim" in the field. The petitioner failed to submit evidence 
demonstrating that his peer revi~w experience for ~as indicative of recognition beyond his 
employer or its or indicative of a level of expertise indicating that he is among that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Cj, Matter of Price, 20 
I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Commr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899 (USCIS has long held that 
even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
~ard). The petitioner has not established that his review work limited to _ and its 
~ is indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim at the very top of his 
field. 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), as stated above, it does not appear to rise to the level of contributions of "major 
significance" in the field. Demonstrating that the petitioner's work was "original" in that it did not 
merely duplicate prior work is not useful in setting the petitioner apart through a "career of 
acclaimed work." H.R. Rep. N6. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). That page (59) also says that "an 
alien must (1) demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in the sciences, arts, 
education, business or athletics (as shown through extensive documentation) ... " In this case, the 
record does not contain sufficient evidence that the petitioner's original engineering work had 
major significance in the field, let alone an impact consistent with being nationally or 
internationally acclaimed as extraordinary. The documentation submitted by the petitioner for 
the category of evidence at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) is not indicative of or consistent with 
sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that he is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of his field .. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), 
the petitioner has not submitted documentary evidence establishing that the conference papers he 
coauthored 
were "in professional or major trade publications or other major media." Further, in to 
article in the April 2010 issue of World Oil, there is-no circul~tion evidence showing that World Oil 
qualifies as a major trade publication or some other form of major media. Moreover, the 
petitioner's citation history is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is indicative of 
the petitioner's recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 
1122. As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted citation evidence indicating that none of 
his articles has been independently cited to more than three times per article. This minimal level 
of citation by others is not sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's work has attracted a 
level of interest in his field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the 
very top of the field. 
'.. " 
Page 25 
\ 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), as previously discussed, the petitioner has not established that he has 
performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation. The documentation submitted by the petitioner for the category of 
evidence at8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national 
acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that he is one of that small percentage who have risen to 
the very top of his field. 
In this matter, the petitioner has not established that his achievements at the time of filing were 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as an engineer in the petroleum 
industry, or being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The 
submitted evidence is not indicative of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated 
by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 1990). The conclusion the AAO reaches by 
considering the evidence to meet each category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) separately 
is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Ultimately, the evidence in the 
aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). While the petitioner need not 
demonstrate that there is no one more accomplished than himself to qualify for the classification 
sought, it appears that the very top of his field of endeavor is above the level he has attained. 
III. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an 
extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achieyements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(I)(A) of the'Act and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
aff'd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for, 
the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.