Process Engineering Manager

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.

The AAO affirmed that the petitioner did not meet the 'original contributions of major significance' criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)), finding that evidence of published work, citations, and expert testimonials did not sufficiently demonstrate widespread implementation or major impact beyond the petitioner's employers. The AAO also concluded that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, noting insufficient evidence for the notability of the conference where the petitioner judged and a lack of evidence showing widespread application or significant impact of the petitioner's research in mechanical engineering. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the petitioner did not establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, or incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision.