Date of Decision: May 28, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1B (Outstanding Professor or Researcher)
Petitioner Information
Profession: Senior Data Scientist
Field: Data Science
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of scholarly articles: The Beneficiary has published articles in reputable scientific journals, including a paper recognized as a “Highlight of 2015” in the journal Inverse Problems.
- Original scientific or scholarly contributions: The Beneficiary’s work in developing machine learning models and data analysis tools was cited by peers and applied in related research.
- Participation as a judge: The Beneficiary has acted as a peer reviewer for articles submitted to scientific journals, such as Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine.
Criteria Not Met:
- Awards and Prizes Won: The Beneficiary did not receive any major internationally recognized awards or prizes.
- Published Materials About the Petitioner: There was insufficient evidence that other researchers have published substantial works discussing the Beneficiary’s contributions.
- Membership in Associations: The documentation did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary held memberships in associations that require outstanding achievements.
Key Points from the Decision
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Beneficiary contributed to developing a report that analyses player trends and models for game marketing, aiding in customer retention. However, there was insufficient evidence showing the international recognition or widespread adoption of these contributions.
Participation as a Judge: The Beneficiary’s participation as a peer reviewer for academic journals was acknowledged, but this activity was not deemed sufficient to distinguish him as outstanding in his field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Beneficiary co-authored several papers in collaboration with university professors, one of which was highlighted in a well-regarded journal. Nonetheless, the evidence did not support that these publications had a significant international impact.
Supporting Documentation
- Reference Letters: Several letters of support from colleagues and collaborators were submitted, but these lacked the necessary specificity and detail to substantiate the Beneficiary’s international recognition.
- Patent Citations: The Beneficiary’s patent was cited in six other patent applications. However, this was not enough to demonstrate a substantial impact in the field of data science.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary is internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher in the field of data science.
Next Steps: It is recommended that the Petitioner provide more substantial evidence of the Beneficiary’s international recognition, such as additional citations, documented application of his work by others, or major awards.
