Date of Decision: May 17, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Computer Scientist
Field: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the Work of Others: Evidence demonstrated the petitioner’s participation as a peer reviewer for journals and conferences in the field of artificial intelligence and machine learning.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner provided evidence of publishing scholarly articles in professional journals.
- Leading or Critical Role: Evidence supported that the petitioner served in a leading and critical capacity for a U.S.-based financial technology company.
Criteria Not Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: Evidence provided was not deemed sufficient to establish contributions recognized as being of major significance in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Judging the Work of Others:
The petitioner documented serving as a peer reviewer for scientific journals and conferences, satisfying this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored several articles published in professional journals, which were cited and recognized within the field.
Leading or Critical Role:
Evidence demonstrated the petitioner’s critical role as Executive Director for Data Science at a financial technology company, supported by letters detailing his contributions.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Despite submitting expert opinion letters, patents, and citation data, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the petitioner’s contributions had achieved the level of major significance required for this classification.
Supporting Documentation
Peer Review Activities: Proof of reviewing work for journals and conferences.
Scholarly Publications: Articles published in professional journals with citation data.
Leadership Evidence: Letters from the employer detailing the petitioner’s critical contributions to organizational success.
Contribution Evidence: Letters and citation metrics provided, but insufficient to demonstrate major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met three evidentiary criteria but failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of their field.