dismissed EB-1A Case: Computer Science

MATTER OF S-R-Y-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 25, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner is a researcher whose work is used in several disciplines, such as computer science, 
machine learning, and computational intelligence. He seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act)§ 203(b)(l)(A), 8 
U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This classification makes visas available to foreign nationals 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, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition and upheld his decision in a subsequent 
motion to reopen. The Director determined that the Petitioner has not satisfied the initial 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3 ), which necessitates either 1) documentation of a one­
time major achievement, or 2) evidence that show that he meets at least three of ten regulatory 
criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The matter is before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner submits no new evidence but argues 
that the Director erred in concluding that the he did not meet the original contributions of major 
significance criterion. Additionally, although the Petitioner stated that he would submit a brief and 
additional evidence within 30 days of filing the appeal, to date, we have received neither a brief nor 
additional evidence. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner may establish his eligibility by demonstrating extraordinary ability through sustained 
national or international acclaim and achievements that have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. Specifically, section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
Aliens with extraordinary ability.-- An alien is described in this subparagraph if-
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
Matter ofS-R-Y-
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and . 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals "in that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate his sustained acclaim 
and the recognition of his achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). If a petitioner does not submit this documentation, then it must 
provide sufficient qualifying evidence indicating that he meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 
C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) (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); Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" anq that users examines "each piece of evidence for 
relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of 
the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the Petitioner, as initial evidence, may present a one­
time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, the Petitioner has 
not claimed or shown that he is the recipient of a qualifying award at a level similar to that of the 
Nobel Prize. As such, the Petitioner must provide at least three of the ten types of documentation 
listed under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met the criteria pertaining to judging of the work of others 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the authorship of scholarly articles under 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record supports these findings. For example, the Petitioner submitted 
documentation of the completed peer review of seven manuscripts submitted for publication. 
Additionally, the Petitioner submitted eight of his articles which have been published in professional 
or major trade publications. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-R-Y-
On appeal, the Petitioner specifically challenges the Director's findings relating to the original 
contributions of major significance criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) . As the Petitioner has not 
argued that the Director erred in regard to, or continued to maintain that he meets any other claimed 
criteria, these will not be discussed in this decision. 
We now tum to the criterion at issue on appeal. For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets this criterion by virtue of (1) having received 
recommendations from other experts in his field of endeavor, (2) having published works which 
have been cited more than 130 times in the aggregate by others in his field, and (3) having been cited 
to an extent that he is comparable to other peers engaged in the same ty
pe of research. To satisfy 
this criterion, a petitioner's contributions must be both original and of major significance in the field. 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The term "original" and the phrase "major significance " are not 
superfluous and, thus, they have some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 
51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
Regardless of the field, the phrase "contributions of major significance in the field" requires 
substantiated impacts beyond one's employer , clients or customers. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 
134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion , because she did not 
demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides a list of "grievances with clarifications and qualifications ," 
challenging the Director ' s decision in both his denial of Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, and his dismissal of the Petitioner ' s motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. The 
Petitioner's challenges focus on testimonial letters submitted with the initial petition as well as a 
letter submitted with the motion; articles which the Petitioner published in professional publications 
and citations to those published works as documented by citation indices subii1itted as evidence. 
The Petitioner submitted 12 testimonial letters from individuals who attest to his experience in a 
variety of areas related to Machine Learning, Computational Intelligence , Economic Load Dispatch , 
Product Development and Supply Chain Management. Each of the 12 authors claims that the 
Petitioner is expert in a particular area of research , having collaborated with him on a specific 
project. However , none identify a specific contribution which the Petitioner has made and which has 
had a measurable impact upon his field of endeavor. 
For example, director and professor, Manufacturing Engineering, 
spoke of the Petitioner having approached him in 2008 "to 
develop a case study under a project." 
explained that in this project, the Petitioner "planned on surveying different researchers in my 
lab to understand the challenges , nuances, and next 
steps to implement lean thinking in product development thru [sic] a high tech process such as 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-R-Y-
additiv~ manufacturing." The Petitioner worked with many students and other researchers to collect 
the data which, according to was published as a "case study with [the Petitioner's] advisor 
did not indicate if the results of the Petitioner's case study have been utilized 
by anyone else in the field of product development or in any other field. 
Director of Research, Operations and Supply Chain, 
addressed his collaboration with the Petitioner, indicating that they worked on a project "developing 
a comprehensive 1and robust framework for designing supply chains, commonly known as 
problem." In the course of researching this matter, the Petitioner "derived 
Generic-Bill of Material, and incorporated process flexibility, product variety, market mediation 
variety, different material flow types, product component modularity, production function 
modularity, etc. in the framework." indicated that the Petitioner "quantified all those 
parameters to develop optimization model that, when solved, would lead to optimal costs, sales 
profit, and product design complexity all as an end result following one framework." 
stated that the "results were outstanding and well appreciated by the subjects of the case study." 
However, did not indicate whether the Petitioner's optimization model had been 
implemented by any entities or if the expected results, related to "optimal costs, sales profit and 
product design complexity" were ever achieved. 
Infrastructure Facility, stated that he has 
collaborated 
with the Petitioner on two projects: one involving "a state-:of-the-art machine learning 
algorithm to predict stock movements" and one involving the quantifying of '"Lean Value' in a 
product development and/or supply chain design where a mathematical model is developed to 
measure value at each stage of product development." noted that each project resulted in 
an article but did not identify the title of the first and indicated that the second is currently under peer 
review. Further, although states that test results of the stock-predicting algorithm showed 
accuracy of up to 70 percent, he did not claim that anyone had applied the algorithm in real-world 
scenarios. Moreover, while identifying the nature of the second research project, does 
not discuss whether the project was successful or whether it was utilized. by anyone working in the 
product development or supply chain field. 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from Professor and Head of the Department, 
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, 
was one of the Petitioner's undergraduate advisors and collaborated with him on five articles that 
were published in professional journals. described the Petitioner as "in the top 1 0" if not 
"top 5" of his past students, stating that he is an "exceptional researcher who has independently and 
jointly published original scientific papers" with more than 100 citations which indicated 
is rare among those researchers without a doctorate. went on to laud the Petitioner's 
abilities, noting that he engages in research "across disciplines," and stating that if one were to 
"focus just on his published work, it is only half of the projection of his extraordinary ability." 
However, while maintained that the Petitioner has "designed Robots, worked on 
Driverless Cars, Solar Cars, and Virtual Reality based Training System for First Responders which 
were submitted at the as technical reports," he 
provided no specific information pertaining to actual contributions which the Petitioner made to any 
4 
(b)(6)
.Matter ofS-R-Y-
one of these projects or an impact which the Petitioner's work made on the field of endeavor. 
Further, while spoke highly of the Petitioner and his abilities, he made no mention of 
specific achievements or contributions which have made a measurable impact upon his field of 
endeavor. 
The remaining letters were authored by other individuals who have collaborated with the Petitioner 
on various projects. Each indicates that the respective project resulted in a scholarly article which 
has either been published or submitted for publication. The authors speak of the Petitioner's 
involvement as developing "mathematical models" for the various projects and all describe him in 
complimentary terms as "a visionary and motivated scholar" with the "ability of a prodigy." 
However, none of the authors identify a specific original contribution for which the Petitioner is 
responsible that has already made a significant demonstrable impact upon his field, whether that 
field is Computational Intelligence, Machine Learning or any of the other areas in which the 
Petitioner engages in research. 
The letters written in support 6f the petition provided information on the Petitioner's academic and 
professional achievements, but did not include specific examples of how his research has impacted 
the field as a whole, or that the impact is of "major significance" in the field. While the Petitioner 
has engaged in various types of research associated with product development, such as machine 
learning, at issue is whether there is specific documentation corroborating his impact on the field as 
a whole. The Petitioner has not made such a showing. 
Solicited letters that do not specifically identify contributions or include specific examples of how 
those contributions influenced the field as a whole are insufficient to meet this criterion. 1 Kazarian, 
580 F.3d at 1036. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been 
considered above. users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements offered as 
expert testimony. See Matter ofCaron Int'l, 19 r&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, 
users is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a foreign national's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition 
is nqt presumptive proof of eligibility; users may, as this decision has done above, evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the foreign national's eligibility. See id. at 795; 
see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500 n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does 
not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). users may even give less weight to an opinion that is not 
corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Caron Int 'l, 19 I&N 
Dec. at 795; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding our decision to give minimal 
weight to solicited letters from colleagues or associates that do not provide details on contributions 
of major significance in the field). 
1 In 20 lO, the Kazarian court reiterated that our conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the self­
petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 
F.3d at 1122. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-R-Y-
The Petitioner also makes reference to the number of citations that his published works have 
received. One of the articles upon which he relies, ' 
has been cited 152 times as of the date of this decision. 2 The Petitioner co-authored this 
article with his academic advisor, as well as two other researchers while pursuing his 
undergraduate studies at the While noting the 
number of citations that this article has received, the Petitioner has provided no documentary 
evidence showing that this level of citation equates to a contribution of major significance in the 
field. As mentioned above, the Petitioner provided a number of testimonial letters. However, none 
of the authors addressed the Petitioner's research which resulted in the publication of this article and 
none reference any impact this work had upon the field of electric power systems. Neither has the 
Petitioner shown that the findings in the article have affected the field in a substantial way, having 
altered existing practices in the field of electric power systems or otherwise constitute contributions 
of major significance in the field. The Petitioner supplied a letter from co-author, 
referenced above, and does not mention the findings of this research or provide examples 
of how the work rises to the level of a contribution of major significance. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not shown that his findings reported in this article represent contributions of major 
significance. 
Apart from this article, the Petitioner provided evidence of seven other articles that were published 
in trade publications. However, none of the Petitioner's other published works have been cited more 
than 13 times by other researchers in the field. The Petitioner has not provided persuasive evidence 
that the limited_ citation frequency is indicative of the Petitioner's impact in the field at a level 
consistent with a finding of"major significance." 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director's comparing of his work and the volume of 
citations generated by his publications against the output of scholars such as is misplaced 
since the Petitioner's "area of contribution is smaller than that of " According to the 
Petitioner, "has worked in hundreds of areas" and this would account for the larger 
number of citations which his work has received. The Petitioner suggests that a more apt 
comparison would be with "researchers who work in the specific areas of contributions as [the 
Petitioner]." The Petitioner goes on to identify 12 other individuals who, he claims, work in the 
fields of computational intelligence and operations research and seven of which wrote testimonial 
letters in his behalf. The Petitioner also provided a total citation number for each of these 
individuals, though he does not identify the source of this data or any ofthe associated articles which 
account for the citation figures. Statements, unsubstantiated by supporting evidence, are insufficient 
to satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof. Matter ofSojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). This 
criterion requires evidence that the Petitioner's contributions are "original" and of "major 
significance" in the field as a whole. A review of the citations associated with any one of the 
- -
(accessed May 10, 2016) 
6 
Matter ofS-R-Y-
Petitioner's published articles does not demonstrate an impact of"major significance" upon the field. 
Further, the impact would have to be considered against works produced by other experts across the 
field, as opposed to a narrow selection of individuals which the Petitioner identifies. 
In addition, the Petitioner identifies several areas of research to which he refers to as fields of 
expertise: economic load dispatch, product development, and supply chain management, to name a 
few. The Petitioner argues that an equitable comparison of his work would be to those "researchers 
who work in the specific areas of contributions as [the Petitioner]." However, the Petitioner's 
research appears to have been conducted in broad fields such as computer science, industrial 
engineering and sub-specialties such as machine learning and computational intelligence. The 
Petitioner's identification of specific research projects as fields of expertise is a narrowing of his 
field to an extent which prevents meaningful comparison. 
In this case, while the record establishes the Petitioner's involvement in various research projects, it 
does not show the Petitioner's influence on the field as a whole. The submissions do not 
demonstrate his impact at a level consistent with a finding of "major significance in the field." 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The documents submitted in support of extraordinary ability must show that the individual has 
achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of his or her field 6f endeavor. Had the Petitioner provided evidence satisfying at least 
three evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits determination that considers all of 
the filings in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise 
indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor," and (2) that the individual "has sustained national or international acclaim and 
that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
(3 ); see also Kazarian, 596 F .3d at 1119-20 (discussing a two-part review where the evidence is 
first counted and then, if satisfying the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a 
final merits determination). Although we need not provide the type of final merits determination 
referenced in Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner 
has not established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-R-Y-, ID# 17224 (AAO July 25, 2016)