Date of Decision: AUG. 29, 2016
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Data Scientist
Field: Applied Statistical Modeling
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging: The Beneficiary reviewed manuscripts for peer-reviewed journals.
- Scholarly Articles: Authored scholarly articles on modeling techniques for recognition of impaired speech.
- Contributions of Major Significance: The Beneficiary’s work on speech recognition models and financial instrument scoring frameworks showed promise but lacked evidence of significant national or international acclaim.
Criteria Not Met:
- Leading Role: The Beneficiary’s roles at his current and previous employers did not demonstrate the required level of impact or acclaim.
- Membership in Associations: Memberships were based on class ranking or did not require outstanding achievements.
- High Salary: The salary was below the top 10th percentile for computer and information research scientists.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won
- Summary of findings: The document does not detail specific awards or prizes won by the Beneficiary.
Published Materials About the Petitioner
- Summary of findings: The Beneficiary authored several scholarly articles, but the response from the field was moderate and not indicative of national or international acclaim.
- Key quotes or references: “Three of his articles garnered moderate citation… they are not representative of the type of national or international acclaim required for this classification.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance
- Summary of findings: The Beneficiary’s work was promising but did not influence the wider field to the extent required for national or international recognition.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has not documented original contributions whose significance in the field is commensurate with national or international acclaim.”
Participation as a Judge
- Summary of findings: The Beneficiary’s manuscript reviews were routine in the field and did not set him apart as having national or international recognition.
- Key quotes or references: “Peer review is routine in the field; not every peer reviewer enjoys international recognition.”
Membership in Associations
- Summary of findings: Memberships did not meet the requirement for outstanding achievements judged by national or international experts.
- Key quotes or references: “The listed requirements for membership do not constitute the type of outstanding achievements contemplated by the regulation.”
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
- Summary of findings: While the Beneficiary authored scholarly articles, the moderate citation level and lack of detailed impact did not support national or international acclaim.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary’s publication history is indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim.”
Leading or Critical Role Performed
- Summary of findings: The roles performed by the Beneficiary did not show the necessary level of acclaim or influence in the field.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary’s roles are commensurate with national or international acclaim.”
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration
- Summary of findings: The Beneficiary’s salary was above the median but below the top 10 percent, not supporting the level of acclaim required.
- Key quotes or references: “The Beneficiary’s salary is not indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim.”
Supporting Documentation
- Letters from Experts: Detailed the Beneficiary’s contributions but did not provide sufficient evidence of significant impact or acclaim.
- Curriculum Vitae: Outlined the Beneficiary’s professional background and achievements but lacked supporting evidence for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the burden of demonstrating that the Beneficiary’s accomplishments are commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps: Recommendations or next steps for the petitioner were not specified in the document.
