dismissed O-1A Case: Electrical Engineering

MATTER OF T:W-G- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 19,2017 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a venture capitalist firm, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as a foreign national of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(0)(i), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i). This 0-1 classification makes nonimmigrant visas available to foreign 
nationals who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. 
The Director ofthe Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not meet any initial evidence criteria, when satisfying at least three is required. On appeal, the 
Petitioner submitted a brief arguing that the record includes evidence meeting five criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we identified issues that the Director did not raise, relating to the Petitioner's 
legal existence at the time it filed the petition, the credibility of its claims regarding the Beneficiary's 
proposed work duties, and documentation supporting his proposed salary. We therefore issued a 
notice of intent to dismiss (NOID) the appeal to provide the Petitioner an opportunity to address 
these concerns. The Petitioner, however, has not responded to our NOID. For the reasons discussed 
below, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to a qualified beneficiary who has 
extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics, and who seeks to enter the 
United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability. According to the regulations, such 
, an individual "may be authorized to come to the United States to perform services relating to an event 
or events if petitioned for by an employer." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(l)(i). A petitioner must provide, 
among other things, an explanation of the nature and dates of the events or activities in which the 
beneficiary will work. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(C). A petition may only be filed by a United States 
employer, a United States agent, or a foreign employer through a United States agent. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(2)(i). 
Matter ofT- W-G- LLC 
Extraordinary ability in science, education, business, or athletics means "a level of expertise indicating 
that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). The regulations set forth a multi-part analysis for determining whether a 
beneficiary possesses such ability. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii). The first step is determining whether 
a petitioner has provided sufficient initial evidence. This requirement can be satisfied with proof 
that the beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A). If a petitioner does not submit this documentation, then that petitioner must 
meet at least three of the eight initial evidence criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l)-(8). 
The submission of documents relating to at least three initial evidence criteria does not, however, in 
and of itself, establish eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 
1994). We have held that "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its 
quality." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Pursuant to the preponderance 
of the evidence standard, we "must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, 
and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine 
whether the fact to be proven is probably true." !d. Accordingly, where a petitioner provides 
qualifying initial evidence under at least three criteria, we will then determine whether the totality of 
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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Valid United States Employer 
As noted above, an 0-1 petition may only be filed by a United States employer, a United States agent, 
or a foreign employer through a United States agent. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(i). The Petitioner does not 
claim to be an agent, and must therefore be a legal United States employer. We raised this issue in the 
NO~D, noting that publicly available documents show that the Petitioner was not a legal entity at the 
time it filed the instant petition on June 1, 2015. The website of the Georgia Secretary of State, 
Corporations Division, shows that an entity with the Petitioner's name was registered in 2006, but 
that company was administratively dissolved in 2008. 1 The website reveals a currently active 
business with the Petitioner's name, however, this entity was registered on October 20, 2015, several 
months after the filing of this petition. 
The Petitioner has not responded to the NOID. As a result, the record does not support a finding 
that, at the time of filing, the Petitioner was a legal entity or a valid United States employer eligible 
to seek 0-1 classification for the Beneficiary .. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(i). The Petitioner must satisfy 
all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit from the time of filing. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103 .2(b )( 1 ). Here, it has not made such a showing. 
1 
See Business Search, State of Georgia Secretary of State website, https://ecorp.sos.ga.gov/BusinessSearch (last visited 
Apr. 4, 2017 and incorporated into the record of proceedings). 
2 
. .
Matter ofT- W-G- LLC 
B. Work in the Area of Extraordinary Ability 
A petitioner must demonstrate that a beneficiary seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the 
area of extraordinary ability. The record should contain an explanation of the events or activities in 
which the beneficiary will work. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(C). In this case, the Petitioner has 
submitted a proposed itinerary for the Beneficiary indicating that he will provide consulting services 
related to oil and gas recovery processes to three of the Petitioner's clients: 
.and 
We noted in the NOID that the record does not support the Petitioner's claimed relationships with 
these entities or its involvement in the business of providing consulting services for oil and gas 
recovery. The Petitioner has not verified the existence of a that operates in the oil and 
gas recovery business? On its website, describes itself as "the oldest and largest 
company in the nation." 3 states that it is "a leading provider of innovative 
software focused on helping our customers improve financial performance, 
increase operating efficiencies and maintain regulatory compliance." 4 The Petitioner has not refuted 
these statements or otherwise explained why these companies would hire the Petitioner to provide 
consulting services related to oil and gas recovery. Without an explanation and additional 
corroboration, the Beneficiary's 
proposed work lacks credibility. As a result, the evidence does not 
satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(C). 
C. Extraordinary Ability 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an "international electrical engineer" for three 
years. It does not claim that the Beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award, 
and instead maintains that he meets five of the alternative initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l)-(8). On appeal, the Petitioner mentions previously submitted evidence in 
support of each criterion. For the reasons discussed below, we find that the material meets only one 
criterion, when documents satisfying at least three are required. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field o.f endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(l). 
The Director noted that the Beneficiary has received six training certifications, but found the record 
did not show that these were nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. On appeal, 
2 
In the NOID, we noted the existence of the widely known 
incorporated into the record of proceedings) (discussing the purchase of 
3 
http:// (last visited Apr. 4, 
a multi-billion doiJar oil company. See 
20 12) http:/1 
(last visited Apr. ·3, 2017 and 
for $5.3 biiJion). 
2017 and incorporated into the record of 
proceedings). 
4 About Us, 
proceedings). 
http:/; (last visited Apr. 3, 2017 and incorporated into the record of 
3 
.
Matter ofT-W-G- LLC 
the Petitioner emphasizes the Beneficiary's receipt of the and Certified Serum Master 
certificates in particular. The Petitioner provides a printout from the website indicating 
that it is "a de facto process-based method for effective project management." An explanation of the 
Certified Serum Master certificate states that a serum master "helps project teams properly use 
Serum [and] increas[ es] the likelihood of the project's overall success." These materials show that 
such trainings are potentially useful in the workplace. Importantly, however, the Petitioner does not 
address the deficiency identified by the Director, namely, that the training certificates are not 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. 
Although not raised on appeal, the record also contains a letter from 
an associate of the Beneficiary. indicated: 
Beneficiary] as 2014 
of 
"We ... recognize [the 
in the category of ' 
Despite this declaration, the Petitioner has not 
submitted corroborating material to show the Beneficiary's receipt of this honor. For purposes of 
this criterion, it also has not shown that the award is nationally or internationally recognized or that it 
was received for excellence in the field of endeavor. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not 
satisfied this 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 orfields. 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2). 
The Petitioner asserts that evidence of the Beneficiary's membership in the 
satisfies this criterion. It provides information regarding the qualifications for 
membership in the an individual must work in the petroleum industry and have 1) a two-year 
science or engineering degree, 2) a four-year university degree in any field, or 3) six years of 
experience related to the engineering or science in the petroleum industry. On appeal, it emphasizes 
the Professional Code of Conduct, which indicates that ' Professionals are to exhibit the 
highest standards of competency, honesty, integrity and impartiality .... " However, neither the 
membership qualifications nor the Code of Conduct satisfies this criterion. The Petitioner 
has not established that education and experience, without more, constitute outstanding 
achievements. Furthermore, the information provided does not include any necessary credentials for 
those assessing prospective members. In other words, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
membership determinations are made by recognized national or international experts. For these 
reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien ·s participation on a panel. or individually, as a judge of the work of others 
in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which classification is sought. 
8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4). 
The Petitioner provided evidence that he served as a referee for 
corporate member of 
requirements of this criterion. 
4 
application as a 
We find that this satisfies the 
.
Matter ofT- W-G- LLC 
Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations 
and establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 2l4.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). 
The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary was employed in a critical capacity for 
a subsidiary of It provides a letter from 
the company's geosciences general manager. indicates that the 
Beneficiary was a project interface manager and a team head for subsea development projects, 
specifically, the According to the Beneficiary's efforts 
contributed to the successful completion of the project, which resulted in an additional 486 million 
barrels (MMBBL) of oil reserves, an additional 100 thousand barrels of oil equivalents (MBOE) of 
gas reserves, and a net profit of about $1 billion. Engineering Division Manager 
for Development Projects, was similarly complimentary of the Beneficiary's impact: "His efforts 
definitely contributed to the successful completion of major development, projects that have 
contributed to oil & gas production increase for the company. He played a critical role within the 
successful completion of the projects which can be definitely accredited to his efforts." 
Although these letters confirm the Beneficiary's work for the company, they do not provide details 
regarding his rok in the stated project or the company at large. Positive contributions, without 
additional corroboration, are not sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary was employed in a 
critical or essential capacity. states that the Beneficiary played a critical role in 
projects, but does not provide the rationale for this conclusion or specifically explain what he did 
that was critical or essential. Moreover, the regulation requires that the Beneficiary be employed in 
such a capacity for the organization as a whole. While mentions the Beneficiary's work 
on a specific project, he does not discuss the significance of the Beneficiary's work within the 
company at large. For example, although the letter notes the additional output created by the project, 
it does not otherwise discuss the significance of this increase for the organization. 
Lastly, the Petitioner submits blog posts from that indicate planned 
to increase spending and was looking to expand: "The company intends to invest approximately 
$1.2 billion next year in Indonesia, up from the targeted $400 million for this year." Although the 
Petitioner states that this was due to the Beneficiary's role, the record includes insufficient evidence 
to support this claim. As a result, these blog posts, along with other submitted documents, do not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary has 
been employed in a critical or essential capacity for the 
organization. 
Evide~ce that the alien has either commanded a high salary orwill command a high salary or 
other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)( 8). 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary's proposed salary is $200,000 
per year. However, as we indicated in the NOID, the Petitioner did not disclose its gross or net 
income in the petition, instead listing "N/A." Without information regarding the company's 
5 
.
Matter ofT- W-G- LLC 
financial situation, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary's proposed salary and 
compensation are credible. 
In addition, the only eviqence regarding the Beneficiary's past salary is a letter of promotion from 
indicating that he received a promotion effective June 1, 2011 with 
an annual salary of 797,364 Nigerian Naira. Historical conversion rates for that period show that 
this was the equivalent of approximately $5,105.58 per year. 5 The Petitioner has not offered 
evidence verifying that this amount constitutes a high salary or remuneration. As a result, it has not 
provided sufficient documentation that meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that it was a valid United States employer at the time it filed the 
petition, provided a credible description of the Beneficiary's proposed work, or shown that the 
Beneficiary possesses extraordinary ability. As a result, it has not satisfied the requirements for the 
extraordinary ability nonimmigrant classification. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofT-W-G- LLC, ID# 72668 (AAO May 19, 2017) 
5 This conversion is based on the June I, 20 II conversion rate of 0.0064030734 Nigerian Naira per I U.S. dollar. 
Current and Historical Rate Tables, XE (June I, 2011 ), http://www.xe.com/currencytables/?from=NGN&date=20 11-06-
0 I. This rate is used merely as a basis for comparison. 
6