Visalytics
Visalytics
remanded EB-1A

Petroleum Engineer

Petroleum Engineer · 2023-06-08

Decision Date
2023-06-08
This case is from a USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) appeal decision. Appeal cases represent a subset of petitions and may not reflect typical outcomes.

Framework Evaluation

3 of 3 criteria met
Judging the work of others (Met)

The Director and AAO agreed the Petitioner satisfied this criterion through participation as a judge of the work of others in the field.

Scholarly articles (Met)

The Director and AAO agreed the Petitioner satisfied this criterion through authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.

Leading or critical role (Met)

The Petitioner established leading roles as a Department Head for a subsidiary of a major global natural gas producer with a distinguished reputation.

Memberships (Not Met)

Claimed by the petitioner but not found to be met by the Director; the AAO did not evaluate this as three other criteria were met.

Original contributions (Not Met)

Claimed by the petitioner but not found to be met by the Director; the AAO did not evaluate this as three other criteria were met.

High remuneration (Not Met)

Claimed by the petitioner but not found to be met by the Director; the AAO did not evaluate this as three other criteria were met.

Why This Petition Was Remanded

The Petitioner satisfied the leading or critical role criterion by providing detailed descriptions and support letters regarding his positions at a subsidiary of a major natural gas producer. The Director's initial denial was withdrawn because the Petitioner successfully demonstrated meeting three criteria (judging, scholarly articles, and leading role). However, a final merits determination is required to evaluate if the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the top of the field.

Evidence

Evidence Types
Peer Reviewed Publications
Judging Experience
Leading Role
Evidence Submitted
  • Participation as a judge of the work of others
  • Authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications
  • Leading or critical role as Head of the Department of Operation of Liquefied Natural Gas
  • Leading or critical role as Head of the Department of Navigation Safety and Quality Management Systems
  • Evidence of the distinguished reputation of the employer (awards won between 2005-2022)

Similar Cases

Petroleum Engineer

Petroleum

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-11-18
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation for national awards (i), membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements (ii), original contributions of major significance (v), or performing in a leading/critical role for distinguished organizations (viii). The claim for high salary (ix) was not considered as it was raised for the first time on appeal after an RFE. The record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is at the very top of the field.

Engineer

Petroleum · India

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
Texas 2023-08-18
The Petitioner's salary of $180,165 was below the 90th percentile for engineering managers in the Texas oil and gas industry ($214,230). Evidence for original contributions, such as a book and readership analytics, either postdated the filing or lacked proof of major impact on the field. Additionally, the Petitioner failed to provide objective evidence that his former employers possessed distinguished reputations.

General Manager

Petroleum · India

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
Texas 59 days 2024-11-22
The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. Although he met three initial criteria (leading/critical role, high salary, judging), the evidence, including testimonial letters from colleagues and an economic impact analysis, did not sufficiently prove his contributions were of major significance or widely recognized beyond his immediate professional circle. The decision emphasized that internal company achievements, such as reducing safety incidents to zero and saving over $1 million USD per well, did not translate to national or international acclaim.

Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

Engineering

USCIS EB-1A remanded
2022-10-27
The Petitioner successfully met three criteria: judging (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)), scholarly articles (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)), and original contributions of major significance (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)). The Director's initial denial was based on the failure to meet three criteria, which was overturned on appeal. The case was remanded for a final merits determination to assess sustained national or international acclaim.

Frequently Asked Questions

A remanded EB-1A petition means the case was sent back to the field office for further review. This happens when procedural errors are found or additional evidence should be considered. It is neither an approval nor a denial.

Browse More Cases

More remanded cases More Petroleum cases

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2023-06-08.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome remanded
Criteria Met 3 / 3
Evidence Types 3

EB-1A Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 881
Success Rate 52.9%
Sustained 466
Dismissed 299

Related Pages

EB-1A Overview All EB-1A Cases EB-1A Dashboard

Get Case Insights

Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.

Join Waitlist