Date of Decision: July 25, 2016
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher
Field: Computer Science, Machine Learning, Computational Intelligence
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner submitted eight articles published in professional or major trade publications.
Judging the Work of Others:
Documentation of peer review for seven manuscripts submitted for publication.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The Petitioner did not demonstrate that his contributions had a measurable impact on the field.
- Letters of support did not provide specific examples of contributions of major significance.
- Citations of published works were not sufficient to demonstrate major significance.
Key Points from the Decision
Original Contributions of Major Significance
- Summary of Findings:
The Petitioner failed to prove that his work had substantial impact in the field. Letters of recommendation and citation counts were insufficient without specific evidence of significant influence. - Key Quotes or References:
“The Petitioner has not shown that his findings reported in this article represent contributions of major significance.”
Participation as a Judge
- Summary of Findings:
The Petitioner reviewed seven manuscripts for publication, which met the criterion for judging the work of others.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
- Summary of Findings:
The Petitioner had eight articles published in major trade publications, fulfilling the criterion for authorship of scholarly articles.
Supporting Documentation
- Peer Review Documentation:
Documentation showing completed peer review of seven manuscripts. - Published Articles:
Eight articles published in professional journals. - Letters of Recommendation:
Twelve letters from experts in the field, none of which provided specific examples of contributions of major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim. The evidence did not show that the Petitioner’s contributions had a major significance in the field.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more specific evidence of the impact of his work on the field and submit a new petition with detailed documentation.
