dismissed EB-1A Case: Artificial Intelligence

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 5, 2025 In Re: 35275469 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an artificial intelligence (AI) researcher, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required . 
The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens with extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. A petitioner must establish that these aliens seek to enter the United States 
to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability, and that their entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit the United States. The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those aliens in 
"that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a 
petitioner can demonstrate international recognition of an alien's achievements in the field through a 
one-time achievement in the form of a major, internationally recognized award. Or the petitioner can 
submit evidence that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x), 
including items such as awards, published material in certain media, and scholarly articles. If those 
standards do not readily apply to the alien's occupation, then the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) 
allows the submission of comparable evidence. 
Once a pet1t10ner has met the initial evidence requirements, the next step is a final merits 
determination, in which we assess whether the record shows sustained national or international 
acclaim and demonstrates that the alien is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where 
the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, considered in 
the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 
(D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner earned a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, focusing on machine intelligence and robotics, at 
I I in his native Iran in 2009. Since 2012, he has been the chief executive officer of his 
own software company in I I The Petitioner states that his "research has particularly focused on 
applied AI in cyber-physical systems, from banking and energy to transportation and healthcare." The 
Petitioner seeks employment "as an AI safety & robustness analytics manager at Apple." The Petitioner 
stated that he has "been contacted by several recruiters from ... Apple" and other companies, but the 
record shows only that Apple and other companies acknowledged receiving the Petitioner's resume. 1 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Initially, the Petitioner claimed to have satisfied the requirements for three of the criteria, pertaining 
to judging the work of others, original contributions of major significance, and authorship of scholarly 
articles. In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner also claimed to have met a fourth 
criterion pertaining to high remuneration. 
In the denial notice, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had met two of the criteria, pertaining 
to judging and scholarly articles. 2 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied the criteria 
relating to judging and scholarly articles. We will discuss the other claimed criteria below. 
1. Original Contributions 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) calls for evidence of the alien's original scientific, 
scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. 
1 On Form T-140, the Petitioner acknowledged the filing and approval of an earlier immigrant petition, on which he sought 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree under section 203(b)(2) of the Act, with a national 
interest waiver of the job offer requirement. That petition, with receipt number and a priority date of August 
31, 2023, was approved in December 2023. 
2 The Director also stated that the Petitioner had not satisfied three other criteria, relating to prizes, memberships, and 
published material. Because the Petitioner did not claim to have met these three criteria, we will not discuss them further. 
2 
By itself, evidence of patents or publication may establish originality, but not necessarily major 
significance. Evidence of major significance might include documentation showing that a person's 
published research has been heavily cited and provoked widespread commentary, or that a person's 
patented technology has attracted significant attention or commercialization. See generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Detailed letters from experts in the 
field explaining the nature and significance of the person's contribution may also provide valuable 
context, particularly when the record includes corroborating documentation. Id. 
Initially, the Petitioner submitted copies of his articles published in journals and conference 
proceedings; evidence of citation of those articles; and letters from various individuals in the 
computing field. Later, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted additional documentation 
intended to show that the significance of his work has resulted in "prestigious awards," "media 
recognition," and "prestigious membership" in organizations. 
In the denial notice, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's published work and citation history, 
but concluded that "the petitioner has not established how the citation to each publication is 
commensurate with major significance." The Director also stated: "The letter authors have not 
specifically detailed how [the Petitioner's] research is being widely utilized throughout the field." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he has submitted sufficient evidence of the major significance of 
his contributions, including types of evidence specifically identified in the USCIS Policy Manual. The 
Petitioner contends that the Director dismissed this evidence without sufficient discussion and 
consideration. The Petitioner also asserts that the Director considered other submitted materials under 
other, unclaimed criteria instead of as evidence of the major significance of the Petitioner's 
contributions. 
Below, we will more fully discuss and evaluate the Petitioner's evidence. 
The Petitioner initially stated that he: 
has made original contributions of major significance in the field of AI, including but 
not limited to enhancing crane control through the BELBIC [brain emotional learning­
based intelligent controller] model, accelerating AI algorithm development with model­
driven architecture (MDA), stabilizing AI controllers for complex systems, and 
revolutionizing cyber-physical system monitoring .... [The Petitioner] is particularly 
well-known for his contributions to the implementation of emotional bio-inspired 
control algorithms in real-world systems. 
The Petitioner submitted letters from individuals in the IT field, some of whom have collaborated with 
the Petitioner, while others have cited his published work. These individuals provided details about 
some of the Petitioner's projects and described the problems that the Petitioner's work is intended to 
address. The individuals generally described the implications of the Petitioner's work but did not 
specifically explain its major significance in the field. 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "none of [the letters] were specifically evaluated" in the 
Director's decision. The Petitioner devotes a considerable portion of the appellate brief to discussion 
of, and quotations from, these letters. We will discuss examples here. 
A researcher in Iran stated that the Petitioner's "approach demonstrated remarkable efficacy in 
optimizing processing speed, stability, and resource utilization across diverse AI applications," which 
"not only streamlined development processes but also reduced costs and time-to-market for real-world 
AI applications." A researcher in India who cited one of the Petitioner's articles stated that the 
Petitioner's "research demonstrated significant improvements in reaction time and error reduction 
compared to conventional control methods" and "created a robust framework for implementing such 
algorithms in embedded systems," which "has had a marked impact on AI applications in the real 
world." These individuals, however, cited no specific examples of "real-world AI applications" that 
use the Petitioner's work in this way. 
Two further letters submitted in response to the RFE are from researchers stating why they cited the 
Petitioner's publications in their own articles, and describing articles by others that also include 
citations to the Petitioner's work. Like the previous letters, these letters include descriptions of the 
Petitioner's work but do not provide specific, corroborated explanations of how the Petitioner's 
contributions are of major significance as the criterion requires. 
One of the writers, a researcher in the Netherlands, stated that he "extensively cited [the Petitioner's] 
research" in one of his articles. The Petitioner submitted only the first page of the citing article, and 
therefore the record does not substantiate the claim that the article includes "extensive" citations to the 
Petitioner's work. 
While we acknowledge the letters suggest how the Petitioner's work is useful, the letters do not provide 
sufficient detail to meet the Petitioner's burden of establishing how his work is of major significance 
to meet the criterion. 
Other letters specifically addressed the applications of the Petitioner's work to the banking industry. 
But these letters say little about the specific impact of the Petitioner's work beyond his company's 
clients. A bank official stated that the Petitioner presented "his studies and activities regarding Iran's 
Payment System" at a conference in 2016, where his "suggestions were welcomed by the regulatory 
authorities and paved the way for banking system[s] to improve their operations." The lack of detail 
does not permit the conclusion that the Petitioner's conference presentation was a contribution of 
major significance. 
The same bank official stated that the Petitioner's company "has developed some very useful 
applications" that "have been deployed in 40+ payment companies [ and] banks, and have contributed 
a lot to reaching optimum reliability, and perceived availability in banking and payment services 
transactions." The letter lacks both documentary corroboration and background information to 
establish that the impact of the Petitioner's work has reached the level of major significance, rather 
than solely or primarily benefit to individual clients. This lack of corroboration tends to limit the 
weight of the letter. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(8)(1). 
4 
Other letters provide more details but do not establish how widely the Petitioner's work is used. A 
municipal project manager in I I described the Petitioner's improvements to license plate 
recognition cameras, increasing accuracy and therefore revenues, and another project in which he 
improved the accuracy of one bank's network of automatic teller machines. But project-specific 
details do not provide the broader context necessary to show their field-wide major significance. 
As noted above, expert opinion letters are generally more persuasive when supported by 
documentation, and the record does not consistently corroborate the writers' assertions about the 
significance and impact of the Petitioner's work on Iran's banking industry and other areas. 
Next, we turn to the citation of the Petitioner's published work. Published research that has provoked 
widespread commentary on its importance from others working in the field, and documentation that it 
has been highly cited relative to others' work in that field, may be probative of the significance of the 
person's contributions to the field of endeavor. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at 
F.2(B)(l). 
The Petitioner submitted complete or partial copies of several scholarly articles and conference 
presentations that he co-wrote, published between 2002 and 2023. A printout from Google Scholar lists 
44 published articles and presentations, 20 of which had been cited between 1 and 49 times each, for a 
total of312 citations. Most of the citations relate to seven articles published between 2007 and 2010. 
We agree with the Director's conclusion that the citation data does not suffice to establish the major 
significance of the Petitioner's published work. 
The Google Scholar printout shows that the Petitioner earned an h-index of 8, meaning that eight of his 
articles have been cited at least eight times each. The Petitioner asserted that this h-index "plac[ es] him 
in the top 5% of authors publishing in computer science." To support this assertion, the Petitioner 
submitted a table of"h-index percentiles for computer science." The Petitioner did not identify the source 
ofthe table. The source does not appear to be Clarivate, the identified source of other citation information; 
the printout is in a different font than the Clarivate printouts. The Petitioner has not established the 
probative value of this unattributed data table. 
The Petitioner also submitted data from Clarivate Analytics to support the assertion that "[fJor all articles 
published in the category of Computer Science in 2023, the average number of citations is only 0.6," and 
that one ofthe Petitioner's 2023 articles is in "the top 10% most-cited" because it had "received 2 citations 
to date." The submitted evidence is not sufficient to establish major significance. In this regard, it is 
significant that the Petitioner did not cite percentile figures for any of his other, earlier articles. 
Clarivate' stable of"Baseline Citation Rates" shows expected citation rates for papers in computer science 
published between 2013 and 2023, a date range that excludes the Petitioner's most-cited work. The 
baseline figures are higher for earlier years, because there has been more time to accumulate citations. 
The baseline rate for articles from 2013 is 18.2 citations; the overall baseline rate for 2013-2023 is 12.04 
citations. The Petitioner published 14 papers during that period. Only two of those articles, both 
published in 2023, were cited at all, earning one and two citations respectively. 
5 
As explained above, the citation data is incomplete and ambiguous, and therefore does not establish the 
major significance of the Petitioner's published work. 
In the RFE, the Director stated that the citation evidence did not establish the major significance of the 
Petitioner's contributions. In response, the Petitioner submitted "data ... taken from OpenAlex" that 
"places him among the top 2.32% ofresearchers in the field in terms ofresearch productivity." The cited 
data relates to the volume, not the significance, of one's published work. 
The Petitioner also showed that researchers in 33 different countries have cited his published work. The 
Petitioner did not establish that the geographic distribution of citing authors correlates with the 
significance of the cited work. 
As "[e ]vidence of the utilization of [the Petitioner's] work," the Petitioner submitted copies of contracts 
showing that his company provided the following services: 
• "monitoring services for core and payment switch systems" for a software development company 
that provides "banking/insurance solution[ s ]"; 
• "measurement and analytics of qualitative indicators of all the [customer's] infrastructure 
components" for an informatics company; and 
• "measuring, checking and analyzing the quality of infrastructures" for a software company. 
The contracts provide few additional details about the work performed, and do not identify the Petitioner's 
specific original contributions used in the contracted projects. Because the contracts were executed at the 
beginning of each project, they do not establish their later impact and significance. 
The Petitioner also stated that various awards, articles, and memberships demonstrate the significance of 
his contributions, even if they do not meet the requirements ofrelated criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(iii). The record does not support this claim. The awards include second place in a "RoboSoccer 
Simulation League" and recognition of a software program as an "exemplary product in the Fifth National 
congress of Information Technology Managers," with no indication of broader significance. 
One article identifies the Petitioner as "an expert in payment systems," and quotes his opinions on digital 
currency and cryptocurrency. Other articles discuss the Petitioner's positions on Instagram filtering and 
on overreliance on credit cards instead of cash for small transactions. Still others discuss the Petitioner's 
use of computer modeling to predict the spread of COVID-19 in Iran. The record does not establish that 
the Petitioner's recommendations have been implemented and have produced the predicted benefits. The 
articles indicate that the Petitioner has a degree of public visibility, but they do not establish original 
contributions of major significance. 
A letter from the International Chamber of Commerce of Iran indicates that the Petitioner holds a 
permanent pos1t10n on its and has chaired its I I working group 
since 2015. An official of the organization stated that the Petitioner "was invited for membership due to 
his deep academic and research activities at the national and international levels." The letter attests to the 
depth of the Petitioner's knowledge and his active involvement in the field, but does not establish the 
major significance of specific, documented contributions. 
6 
For the above reasons, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not met his burden of proof 
regarding original contributions of major significance. 
2. High Salary 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) calls for evidence that the alien has commanded a high 
salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in the field. 
Evidence to show that an alien's compensation is high relative to that of others working in the field may 
take the form of geographical or position-appropriate compensation surveys. See generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
The Petitioner stated that his total compensation, including his annual salary, benefits, and "[s ]hare of 
annual profits" total 53.4 billion IRR. The Petitioner noted that this total is "notably higher" than Iranian 
survey figures from the World Salaries website. The Petitioner stated that the surveys show annual 
salaries of roughly 10 billion IRR for managing directors; roughly 6.85 billion for AI developers; and 
roughly 8.58 billion for data scientists. 3 
Citing Strategati, LLCv. Sessions, 2019 WL 2330181 (S.D. Cal. May 31, 2019), the Director concluded 
that the Petitioner had compared his "salary to the average, and not others who command high salaries." 
The Director also stated that the Petitioner had not provided comparative figures for non-salary 
compensation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the regulation at "8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) does not require a high 
salary as compared to others who command high salaries." The Petitioner cites numerous district court 
cases indicating that a petitioner should not have to establish that one's remuneration ranks at the very 
highest levels to meet the regulatory requirements. 
None of the court cases cited by the Director or by the Petitioner have precedential authority in this 
proceeding. There are other cases reaching the opposite conclusion. See, e.g., Kinuthia v. Eiden, 702 F. 
Supp. 3d 5, 10 (D. Mass. 2023) (holding that USCIS "reached a rational conclusion" when determining 
that a salary below the 90th percentile was not sufficiently high to satisfy the regulatory criterion). 
The USCIS Policy Manual does not directly address the issue, stating that relevant evidence may include 
"[c ]omparative wage or remuneration data for the person's field." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, 
supra, at F.2(B)(l). But the same source does permit a more focused comparison, for example 
"geographical ... surveys." Id. The Policy Manual also cites, as a resource, "[t]he Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS) Overview ofBLS Wage Data by Area and Occupation webpage," which provides results 
for specific areas within the United States, and "[t]he Department of Labor's Career One Stop website," 
which distinguishes between figures for entry-level workers and the generally higher wages earned by 
3 The figures the Petitioner discussed are ten times higher than the figures on the World Salaries printouts. On appeaL the 
Petitioner compares his claimed remuneration to the unmodified figures in the printouts, thereby increasing the difference by 
an order of magnitude. But the Petitioner also states on appeal that "the comparative salary data is likely off by a factor of 1 0," 
owing to issues with Iranian currency revaluation that are beyond the scope of this decision. In the absence of evidence to 
resolve the issue either way, we will follow the Petitioner's initial interpretation of the World Salaries data. 
7 
more experienced workers.4 Id. Consistent with this guidance, the information from World Salaries 
acknowledges that "salaries will vary a lot based on [one's] experience, location, skills," and other factors. 
Relevant caselaw suggests that "in relation to others in the field" should be interpreted as allowing 
comparisons to those employed in the same occupation at a similar level. See Matter ofPrice, 20 I&N 
Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA 
Tour golfers); Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D.Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's 
salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N.D.Ill. 1995) (comparing 
salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). 
A case from the Ninth Circuit illustrates the importance of comparing the salaries of individuals 
performing similar work: 
The only evidence in the record of comparable salaries is that of the average "security 
guard." By Skokos's own description, he was much more than a security guard, but a 
security consultant with additional responsibilities of supervising other guards, 
arranging security in other locales and foreign countries, and providing round-the-clock 
protection to [his client] and her family. The record is void of information regarding 
salaries for security consultants who perform similar work for musical artists, 
celebrities, or other public figures. 
Skokos v. US. Dep't ofHomeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011). The comparison 
is apt here because the Petitioner has provided salary information for "managing directors," "data 
scientists," and "artificial intelligence developers." The Petitioner has not shown that any of these 
occupational titles fully captures the nature of his work with his company, such that the salary survey 
figures relate to individuals who perform similar work to the Petitioner. 
Also, the World Salaries printouts provided by the Petitioner provide only base salaries and bonuses. The 
majority of the Petitioner's 2023-2024 income, as documented on a monthly payroll receipt, is identified 
as "overtime," "housing allowance," "coupon" and "child benefit"; there is no designated "bonus." 
Therefore, the base salary and bonus figures provided by World Salaries do not provide a reliable 
comparison to the Petitioner's total compensation. 
The Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to meet the regulatory requirements. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten lesser criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type 
of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
4 The cited sources relate directly to employment in the United States rather than Tran, but they suggest that it is appropriate to 
consider other factors beyond aggregate national averages. The World Salaries printouts indicate that the Petitioner's 2023-
2024 salary was below average for a managing director with his level of education and experience. 
8 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a conclusion 
that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for aliens already at the top of 
their respective fields, rather than for those progressing toward the top. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter ofPrice, 20 I&N Dec. at 954. Here, 
the Petitioner has not shown a degree of recognition of his work that indicates sustained national or 
international acclaim and demonstrates a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by 
Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The Petitioner produced the bulk of his published and presented work before 2014, in conjunction with 
his graduate studies and postdoctoral training. The Google Scholar printout of his publication and citation 
history indicates that 261 out of 312 citations to his work appeared before 2019. Every article with ten 
or more citations at the time of filing was published before 2011. This information does not appear to 
indicate sustained acclaim and recognition. 
The Petitioner has documented some degree ofpublic visibility and has earned the respect ofhigh-ranking 
figures in the computing and financial industries in Iran, but the evidence in the record does not 
consistently support key claims and assertions relating to the Petitioner's claims of sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an alien of extraordinary ability. We will therefore 
dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9