Date of Decision: October 5, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Senior Research Scientist
Field: Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participated as Judge in the work of others: The Beneficiary participated as a judge of the work of others, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Scholarly Articles: The Beneficiary authored scholarly articles, satisfying the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
High Salary: The Beneficiary received a salary that is high in comparison to others in his field, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix).
Criteria Not Met:
The Beneficiary met the initial evidence requirement by fulfilling three criteria. However, the evidence did not establish that he has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of his field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No evidence provided.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
No evidence provided.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Beneficiary’s work in AI, including contributions to natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML), was recognized, but the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Beneficiary participated as a judge for several prestigious conferences, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
No evidence provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Beneficiary authored several scholarly articles, which have been cited by other researchers, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Beneficiary contributed to the research efforts of his employer, improving software performance and instructing courses. However, this did not establish a critical role for the company’s overall success.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Beneficiary’s salary was high compared to others in his field, satisfying this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Beneficiary provided various supporting documents, including reference letters, citation metrics, and salary data. However, these did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The evidence provided did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the Beneficiary is among the small percentage at the top of his field.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that clearly establishes the major significance of the Beneficiary’s contributions or explore other immigration options that may better fit their qualifications.
