Date of Decision: January 23, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
- Profession: Data Scientist
- Field: Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML)
- Nationality: Indian
Summary of Decision
- Initial Decision: Denied
- Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner has authored several scholarly articles relevant to his field.
- Leading or Critical Role: He has held significant roles in organizations known for their distinguished reputations.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Materials About the Petitioner: The materials did not sufficiently discuss the petitioner’s specific contributions to the field of AI/ML.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner’s contributions, while noted in other scientific areas, were not shown to have major significance in his specified field of AI/ML.
- High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner did not provide evidence to challenge the initial finding of not meeting this criterion.
Key Points from the Decision
- Published Materials About the Petitioner: The appeal identified that although some research articles referenced the petitioner’s work, they did not focus significantly on his contributions, leading to the conclusion that this criterion was not met.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The appeal board recognized the petitioner’s contributions to scientific research but noted a lack of evidence that these contributions had major significance within the specific field of AI/ML.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted:
- Research articles on singlet fission, which primarily discussed broader scientific topics with only brief mentions of the petitioner.
- Letters from fellow scientists, which praised the petitioner’s work but did not substantiate claims of major significance in AI/ML.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The case has been remanded for a new decision. The initial denial was partially upheld due to insufficient evidence supporting the petitioner’s claims of extraordinary ability in the field of AI/ML.
Reasoning: The appeals board found that while the petitioner is indeed accomplished, the documentation provided did not meet the high standards required for the EB-1 extraordinary ability category, particularly in aligning contributions with the specified field of AI/ML.
Next Steps: The petitioner is advised to provide additional evidence directly related to extraordinary achievements in AI/ML or to clarify the relevance of his documented contributions to this field on remand.
This case underscores the rigorous scrutiny applied in evaluating EB-1 Extraordinary Ability petitions and highlights the importance of aligning one’s extraordinary contributions directly with the field of claimed extraordinary ability.
