Date of Decision: August 20, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Data Scientist
Field: Data Science and Analytics
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner authored multiple non-academic, scholarly articles published in professional and major trade publications, which were written for learned individuals in the field.
- Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
- The petitioner served as a reviewer for data science manuscripts and grant proposals, demonstrating recognition of expertise.
- Leading or Critical Role:
- The petitioner held the position of Associate Vice President, Head of Analytics and Data Science, at a company with a distinguished reputation in consumer technology.
Criteria Not Met:
- Membership in Associations Requiring Outstanding Achievements:
- While the petitioner was a fellow member of the British Computer Society (BCS) and a senior member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the memberships did not meet the regulatory standards due to insufficient evidence of judgment by recognized national or international experts.
- High Salary or Significantly High Remuneration:
- Although the petitioner’s salary ranked in the top 7% of data scientists in the U.S., it did not meet the criterion of demonstrating high remuneration relative to others with comparable experience and responsibilities.
Key Points from the Decision
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner’s articles were determined to be non-academic scholarly works published in professional trade journals. However, their publication was limited to a short period before the filing of the petition, which did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Judging Activities:
- The petitioner demonstrated expertise through judging activities but did so exclusively in the same year the petition was filed, limiting the evidence of sustained acclaim.
Leadership Role:
- While the petitioner’s leadership position demonstrated significant responsibility, the AAO found the duration of the role (August 2021 to March 2023) insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim.
Director’s Errors:
- The Director’s analysis misinterpreted some criteria but correctly identified deficiencies in demonstrating sustained acclaim and recognition.
Final Merits Determination:
- Despite meeting three criteria, the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of data science.
Supporting Documentation
Authorship Evidence: Scholarly articles published in trade journals, written for professionals in data science.
Judging Evidence: Documentation of reviewing manuscripts and grants in the data science field.
Leadership Evidence: Role as Associate Vice President, Head of Analytics and Data Science, for a recognized consumer technology company.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met three regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). However, the record failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and recognition at the very top of the field of data science.
