Date of Decision: October 4, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1B (Outstanding Professor or Researcher)
Petitioner Information
Profession: Senior Research Scientist
Field: Artificial Intelligence
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the Work of Others: The Beneficiary served as a judge for conferences like the 2018 National Conference and the 2016 ACM International Conference on Information Knowledge Management.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Beneficiary contributed original research in the field of artificial intelligence, specifically in user experience and data mining.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Beneficiary authored multiple scholarly articles published in high-ranking conferences.
Criteria Not Met:
- Peer Review Activities: Although the Beneficiary participated in peer review, it was not sufficiently demonstrated that this experience indicated international recognition.
- Research Impact: The Beneficiary’s work, while novel, did not show a significant impact or recognition at an international level.
- Patent Contribution: The Beneficiary’s involvement in a U.S. Patent Application was acknowledged, but it did not establish international recognition as outstanding.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: No specific awards or prizes were detailed as contributing to international recognition.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: The Beneficiary’s work was published in well-ranked conferences, but the citation count and influence did not meet the threshold for international recognition.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Beneficiary’s contributions were recognized within the academic community but did not rise to the level of international acclaim.
Participation as a Judge: The Beneficiary judged a few conferences, but the frequency and level of participation did not demonstrate outstanding international recognition.
Membership in Associations: No specific associations were mentioned as evidence of outstanding achievement.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Beneficiary authored several articles in top conferences, but citation impact was limited.
Supporting Documentation
- Google Scholar Citation Profile: Showed cumulative citations but did not establish international recognition.
- Letters of Support: Four letters were submitted, but they lacked specific details on how the Beneficiary’s work influenced the field internationally.
- Patent Application: A U.S. Patent Application was included but did not demonstrate significant international recognition.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning: The evidence, while demonstrating the Beneficiary’s competence and contributions, did not meet the high standard required for international recognition as an outstanding researcher. The totality of the evidence failed to show that the Beneficiary stands apart in the academic field of artificial intelligence on an international level.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider additional documentation to further support claims of international recognition or explore other visa categories that might align more closely with the Beneficiary’s achievements.