Date of Decision: April 23, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Research Scientist
Field: Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a judge of the work of others: The Petitioner has participated as a judge by peer reviewing manuscripts for conferences and professional journals in his field.
Authorship of scholarly articles: The Petitioner has written several journal articles and more than 20 papers published in conference proceedings.
Criteria Not Met:
Original contributions of major significance: The Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that he had made original contributions of major significance in his field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: Not applicable
Published Materials About the Petitioner: The Petitioner provided his publication and citation record from Google Scholar, which included his journal articles and conference presentations.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner asserted three significant contributions but the evidence provided did not establish their major significance as required by the criteria.
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner has judged manuscripts for conferences and journals, which was acknowledged as meeting the criterion.
Membership in Associations: Not applicable
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner has authored several scholarly articles, which met the criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: Not applicable
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: Not applicable
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided letters from colleagues and experts, his Google Scholar citation history, and records of his journal publications and conference papers. However, the evidence was insufficient to confirm that his contributions had major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not submit the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. The evidence provided did not demonstrate that the Petitioner’s work had the major significance required for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of original contributions of major significance or other qualifying criteria before reapplying.
