sustained EB-1A Case: Oil And Gas Industry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20217088 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 16, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an executive in the oil and gas industry, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the record 
established that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements , it did not establish, as 
required, that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is an individual in the 
small percentage at the very top of the field. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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; who seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and whose 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 the initial evidence requirements through either a one-time achievement or 
meeting three lesser criteria, 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); Rijalv. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
After earning a master's degree at the University of I as a Fulbright scholar, the Petitioner has 
worked for various com anies in the petroleum industry inl including !Corporation 
and Com an . Since 2017, he has been the commercial and marketing vice 
president of state-owned petroleum company. He intends "to []form a 
company in Florida to be able to build commercial equipment to do trading and development of 
business" with Latin America. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he 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 ). The Petitioner claimed to have satisfied seven of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met three of the criteria, relating to membership in 
associations, participation as a judge, and leading or critical roles. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that he meets all the previously claimed criteria. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied the criteria relating 
to judging and leading or critical roles. We disagree with the Director about memberships, because the 
record does not show that the Petitioner is a member of any qualifying associations. Rather, he has 
representedhis employers on the boards of associations for which the members are companies ratherthan 
individuals. 
But we further conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied two other crite1ia, relating to published mate1ial 
about him in major media and original contributions of major significance. Because we agree with the 
Director's core finding that the Petitioner has satisfied at least three of the threshold criteria at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3), we will proceed to the final merits determination. 
2 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Because the Petitioner submitted the required initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim and 
that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, 
we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. 
See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-20. 1 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has established eligibility. 
The Director's final merits determination did not consider the record in its entirety. Rather, the Director 
focused on the criteria at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) that the Petitioner had met, and explained that, while the 
Petitioner had met the letter of those requirements, the evidence did not show sustained national or 
international acclaim. For instance, while the Petitioner's involvement in academic evaluations 
constitutes participation as a judge of the work of others, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had 
not shown that such activity "places [him] among the small percentage of top executives at the very top 
of their field." The Director also questioned the weight of letters that the Petitioner had submitted in 
support of the petition. 
We agree with the general proposition that some of the initial criteria do not specifically contain a directly 
stated element of sustained national or international acclaim, while other criteria are more specifically 
worded. 2 Additionally, we agree that establishing eligibility requires more than the submission of 
favorable letters alone. The record must reflect the individual's sustained national or international acclaim 
to merit approval. Neve1iheless, the Director's final merits deternnnation overlooks more persuasive 
elements of the record. Illustrative examples from the record show that the Petitioner has established 
eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 3 
Dinero magazine named the Petitioner among lin 2003. This accolade, by itself, 
speaks more to the Petitioner's promise than to his achievements at that time, but later materials in the 
record have borne out early predictions ofhis potential. In more recent years, the Petitioner has heldhigh­
ranking executive positions at major oil and gas companies. Such positions are not sufficient to place him 
at the top of the field, but they are consistent with such stature, and other evidence indicates that the 
Petitioner has done more than simply hold high-ranking offices at major energy companies. 
Using his high profile inl I oil and gas industry, he has expanded and reshaped that indus1ry, 
participating in negotiations that significantly increased exp01is. An advisor tol I stated that the 
1 See also 6 USCIS Policy Manua!F.2(8)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (stating that USCTS 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 fortheimmigrant classification). 
2 For instance, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) refers specifically to "membership in associations ... which 
require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts," whereas 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(iv)refers generally to "participation ... as a judge ofthework ofothers," without consideration as 
to the level of judging, the nature of the circumstances where the judging occurs, and whether such judging is a routine 
element ofone'sjob duties. 
3 That record encompasses several thousand pages of submissions, and we will not attempt a comprehensive review of all the 
evidence here. 
3 
Petitioner "led, structured, and negotiated the ______ contract between! I and 
Venezuela, which is unique in Latin America." A major shipment of a million barrels of crude oil to 
South Korea received coverage on a major television network, indicating that interest in this work had a 
reach beyond specialized media that focus solely on business transactions. The Petitioner's participation 
in several industry conferences, both as a speaker and as a panel moderator, have given him the 
opportunity to disseminate his expertise throughout the industry, increasing its reach and influence 
compared to proprietary innovations and strategies that a company might keep confidential in order to 
gain commercial advantage.4 At an 2021 forum on renewable energy, the Petitioner was one of six 
participants, alongside I then-current Minister of I The participation of this 
top-level official is an indication of the high profile of the event. 
As noted above, the Petitioner's positions within various industry associations is not membership in such 
associations, but we agree with the Petitioner's assertion on appeal that his membership in their boards of 
directors and other governing bodies is, itself: an indication of his stature in the field. 
Review of the totality of the record supports the conclusion that the Petitioner has established 
eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, we will sustain the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
4 Participation in industry gatherings is not, in and of itself, demonstrative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
Rather, we acknowledge this activity within the broader context of converging lines of evidence that indicate the 
Petitioner's stature in his field. 
4