Date of Decision: March 5, 2025
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Artificial Intelligence Researcher
Field: Machine Intelligence and Robotics
Nationality: Iran
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
- Judging the Work of Others: The petitioner provided evidence of participation in evaluating the work of others, which USCIS accepted.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner submitted evidence of journal and conference publications, which USCIS accepted as satisfying this criterion.
Criteria Not Met
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner claimed contributions such as the BELBIC model and cyber-physical monitoring systems. USCIS found that while letters and citations suggested originality, they lacked corroborated, field-wide evidence of major significance. Citations were relatively modest (312 in total, most pre-2014), and expert letters did not establish broad adoption or transformative impact.
- High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner presented compensation evidence, but USCIS found that comparisons to managing directors, data scientists, and AI developers were not position-appropriate. Much of his income came from allowances and overtime rather than base salary, and the data used was inconsistent and not reliable for comparison.
Key Points from the Decision
- Insufficient Evidence of Major Significance: Citations and expert letters lacked specificity and corroboration to demonstrate broad field-wide significance of the petitioner’s work.
- Stale Recognition: Most of the petitioner’s impactful publications and citations occurred before 2014, undermining the claim of sustained acclaim.
- Salary Comparisons Flawed: Compensation was compared against inappropriate occupations and relied on questionable salary survey data.
- Respect but Not Acclaim: While respected in Iranian academic and financial circles, the evidence did not show international recognition or top-tier acclaim.
- High Standard of EB-1: USCIS emphasized that EB-1 is “highly restrictive,” reserved for individuals at the very top of their field.
Final Merits Determination
Because the petitioner did not demonstrate at least three regulatory criteria, USCIS dismissed the appeal without proceeding to a full final merits determination. In aggregate, the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as being among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Supporting Documentation
- Publications and Citations: Approximately 44 publications with 312 citations, mostly before 2014.
- Expert Opinion Letters: Letters describing contributions but lacking corroboration of field-wide adoption or major significance.
- Contracts and Project Evidence: Project-specific work in banking and municipal systems, but limited in scope and lacking proof of broader impact.
- Compensation Records: Salary statements and World Salaries survey data, which USCIS found unreliable and poorly matched to his role.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner satisfied two criteria (judging and authorship) but did not meet the third required criterion. The evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition at the very top of the field.
