Date of Decision: August 26, 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 Medical Analytics
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner claimed eligibility under four regulatory criteria but met only two, as determined by the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO).
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner authored multiple peer-reviewed articles on data science and analytics, including research presented at recognized conferences.
- Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
- Evidence included serving as a peer reviewer for academic journals and research projects in the data science field.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- The petitioner provided two articles from online sources, including Inspirationfeed and Soup.io. However, the AAO determined these sources did not qualify as professional or major trade publications due to insufficient evidence of prominence.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner claimed contributions in data mining and pattern recognition, including healthcare software implementation. However, the AAO found insufficient evidence demonstrating the significance of these contributions in the broader field of data science.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Material:
- Articles submitted failed to establish that the petitioner was recognized in professional or major trade publications. Self-promotional assertions and limited data on publication prominence weakened the petitioner’s claims.
Original Contributions:
- The petitioner submitted reference letters from collaborators, but the letters lacked specific details or third-party validation of major significance. For example:
- One letter described a paper cited only twice as “high-profile,” without evidence supporting this claim.
- Another letter mentioned healthcare software implementation but failed to provide independent corroboration of industry-wide adoption or significance.
Final Merits Determination:
- The AAO concluded that the petitioner’s accomplishments, while notable, did not meet the high standard of sustained national or international acclaim required under the EB-1 classification.
Supporting Documentation
Authorship Evidence: Peer-reviewed journal articles and conference presentations in data science and medical analytics.
Judging Evidence: Documentation of peer review and evaluation roles for academic manuscripts.
Published Material Evidence: Articles on platforms lacking demonstrated prominence in the field.
Contribution Evidence: Reference letters and documentation of contributions, with insufficient evidence of major field-wide significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met two regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). However, the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of data science.
