remanded EB-1A Case: Petroleum Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 8, 2023 In Re : 26583404 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a petroleum engineer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
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 Texas Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not establish he 
had a major, internationally recognized award, nor did he demonstrate that he met at least three of the 
ten regulatory criteria. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis . 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1) 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 in 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 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
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 requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 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 determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Before the Director, the Petitioner claimed he met the following six categories: 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others in the same of allied field; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
The Director decided that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria relating to judging the work 
of others in the same or allied field and authorship of scholarly articles, but that he had not satisfied 
any of the remaining categories. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he met the evidentiary criteria 
relating to each of the areas upon which the Director issued an adverse determination. After reviewing 
all the evidence in the record, not only do we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied 
the criteria regarding judging the work of others in the same or an allied field and authorship of 
scholarly articles, but we also conclude he satisfies one additional criterion. Because we conclude the 
Petitioner has satisfied that additional criterion, we will provide analysis on that requirement. 
However, it is unnecessary that we evaluate the remaining claimed criteria because the Petitioner is 
only required to satisfy three of the regulatory requirements. 
2 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
To meet the plain language requirements of this criterion, a petitioner must establish that they have 
performed in either a leading or critical role, and that the role was for an organization or establishment 
( or a division or department of an organization or establishment) having a distinguished reputation. A 
leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and through the 
role's matching duties. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or 
was, in fact, leading. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2)(Appendices), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. If a critical role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner 
has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or 
establishment's activities. It is not the title of the petitioner's role, but rather the petitioner's 
performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was critical. In addition, this criterion 
requires that the organization or establishment be recognized as having a distinguished reputation. 
USCIS policy reflects that organizations or establishments that enjoy a distinguished reputation are 
"marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence." See generally id. (citing to the definition of 
distinguished, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary /distinguished). The 
Petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's role in several companies but concluded the evidence did not 
sufficiently establish these companies had distinguished reputations. On appeal, the Petitioner provides 
additional evidence regarding these roles, and in particular the leading roles he held as Head of the 
Department of Operation of Liquefied Natural Gas and Head of the Department ofNavigation Safety and 
Quality Management Systems for a subsidiary of his home country's largest independent producer of 
natural gas, which is also one of the world's largest public oil and gas companies in terms of production. 
The Petitioner submits detailed descriptions of the duties he performed in these positions as well as 
detailed, credible, and probative letters of support confirming and describing those leading roles in 
meaningful detail, including the role the Petitioner played in the organization overall. The Petitioner also 
submits additional evidence regarding the company's reputation, including an extensive list with 
supporting documentation showing the prizes and awards the company won between 2005 and 2022. 
In summary, the credible evidence provided on appeal sufficiently demonstrates that, more likely than 
not, the Petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have 
a distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner has, therefore, overcome the only stated ground for denial of the petition; the failure to 
satisfy at least three evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Nevertheless, the record 
does not support approval of the petition. However, granting the third initial criterion does not suffice to 
establish eligibility for the classification the Petitioner seeks. The Director must undertake a final merits 
determination to analyze the Petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to 
determine if they establish extraordinary ability in the Petitioner's field of endeavor. 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. 1 
1 See also 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), supra (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the evidence together 
when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
3 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has overcome the only stated ground for denial, we remand this proceeding so 
the Director can render a final merits determination in keeping with the Kazarian framework. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4