dismissed EB-1A Case: Data Analytics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 29, 2025 In Re: 35578420 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a data analytics leader, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(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 the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this immigrant 
classification. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. Although we concluded that the Petitioner met the 
initial evidence requirements by satisfying three evidentiary criteria, we determined the record did not 
demonstrate that he has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is among that small 
percentage of individuals at the very top of his field. The matter is now before us on combined motions 
to reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motions. 
II. LAW 
A. The Extraordinary Ability Classification 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability immigrant classification under section 
203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act if: they have extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, 
or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and their 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation; they seek to enter 
the country to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United 
States would substantially benefit the country. 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.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 provide evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). If a petitioner does not submit this evidence, then they must provide documentation that they 
meet 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). Where a petitioner demonstrates 
that they meet these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the material 
provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained national or 
international acclaim and demonstrates that they are 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 Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 
391 (5th Cir. 2022) (finding USCIS' two-step analysis of extraordinary ability "consistent with the 
governing statute and regulation"). 
B. Motion Requirements 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration; be supported by any pertinent 
precedent decision to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy; 
and establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the 
decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by 
documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 
1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The issues before us on motion are ( l) whether the Petitioner has demonstrated our decision to dismiss 
his appeal was based on a misapplication of law or policy and was incorrect at the time we issued the 
decision; and (2) whether he has submitted new facts, supported by documentary evidence, to warrant 
reopen mg. 
Although the Petitioner has stated reasons for reconsideration and provided new evidence in support 
of his combined motions to reopen and reconsider, the record does not establish his eligibility for the 
classification sought. Accordingly, we will dismiss both motions for the reasons discussed below. 
A. The AAO's Decision 
In our decision dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, we agreed with the Director's determination that 
the Petitioner satisfied the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (viii) by submitting evidence that 
he had participated as a judge of the work of others in his field and served in a leading or critical role 
for an organization with a distinguished reputation. In addition, contrary to the Director's conclusion, 
we determined that he satisfied a third criterion by providing evidence he has authored at least one 
2 
scholarly article in a qualifying publication under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 1 Accordingly, we 
proceeded to a final merits determination, wherein we concluded that the totality of the evidence did 
not show the Petitioner had achieved sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that 
he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
In concluding the Petitioner did not demonstrate the required sustained acclaim, we emphasized that 
the evidence in the record is "primarily limited to a short period of time" immediately preceding filing 
of the petition in October 2023. Specifically, we observed the Beneficiary's documented judging 
activities all occurred in 2023, the articles he authored were published in 2023, and he was admitted 
as a senior or fellow member of two associations in his field in 2023. We acknowledged that evidence 
relating to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and (ix) dated back to 2021 but concluded that 
the record as a whole did not demonstrate his sustained national or international acclaim. In addition, 
beyond considering the dates of the evidence provided in support of the petition, we explained that the 
Petitioner did not meet his burden to demonstrate how his achievements to date placed him among the 
small percentage of individuals at the very top of his field. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
On motion, the Petitioner contends that we omitted "a significant portion of the evidence" from our 
final merits analysis, and that our failure to consider "any and all potentially relevant evidence in the 
record" was contrary to agency guidance for conducting final merits determinations, as published in 
the USCIS Policy Manual. In support of his claims, the Petitioner highlights specific evidence in the 
record and asserts that he demonstrated his "countless achievements and leadership over a prolonged 
period oftime." We will discuss this evidence in tum below. 
The Petitioner asserts that we made a "clearly erroneous factual assumption" when evaluating 
evidence of his employment with consumer technology company! I We concluded that he had 
served in a leading or critical role with this organization since August 2021 when he assumed the role 
of "Associate Vice President, Head of Analytics and Data Science." The Petitioner emphasizes that 
the previously provided letters confirm that he served in a critical role upon joining I I in 201 7 
and clearly made contributions of significant importance to the company's success prior to assuming 
the associate vice president position in 2021. The Petitioner's contention that his performance in a 
leading or critical role with I !preceded his 2021 appointment to a senior management or 
executive role is persuasive; each of the letters detailing the Petitioner's experience with this company 
explains the nature and importance of his contributions dating back to 2017. 
However, the record offers insufficient support for the Petitioner's claim that his work with 
since 2017 resulted in him gaining "a reputation of impeccable leadership and ingenuity" in his field 
that can be equated with sustained national or international acclaim. The Petitioner has not explained 
or documented how his contributions to his employer's success were acknowledged or recognized 
outside the organization, particularly in his earlier roles with the company. While the letters from 
Iand his former colleagues at the company offer high praise for his work-related contributions 
1 We also addressed the Petitioner's evidence submitted in support of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and (ix). 
Although we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he met these two criteria, we considered 
his memberships in associations and evidence related to his salary in the final merits determination. 
3 
I 
and his technical and business expertise in the data analytics field, but they do not provide sufficient 
support for a determination that he garnered external recognition for his leading or critical roles at a 
level consistent with sustained national or international acclaim in the field. Further, the record does 
not contain evidence that that I I recrnited and hired the Petitioner for a critical role in 2017 
based on his existing reputation and national acclaim in the field. 
The Petitioner also maintains that we previously overlooked evidence related to his judging activities 
which "confirms that he is recognized as a knowledgeable Data Analytics Leader at the forefront of 
the industry." Specifically, he states that if he "did not have sustained acclaim from years of prior 
leadership experience, he would not have been chosen from the vast pool of applicants to join a 
Judging Panel of International Executive Leaders." He maintains that although his documented 
participation as a judge of the work of others occurred in 2023, his judging activities "serve[] as a 
testament to the reputation he garnered from his sustained leadership throughout prior years." 
The Petitioner highlights his participation as a judge for the 2023 __________ 
Awards, stating that his selection as a judge "strongly suggests that [he] is widely recognized and 
respected for his achievements and insight in the field." He emphasizes that the competition's panel 
of judges represented well over a dozen countries, that the DAwards are covered by major media 
outlets such as The Guardian, and that he was personally selected to assess submissions by major 
international institutions including the World Bank, CNN, National Geographic, Reuters and USA 
Today. 
We have reviewed the evidence in the record pertaining to the0Awards. The record supports the 
Petitioner's assertion thatO is a prestigious competition in the data visualization field that draws 
entries from well-known organizations. A description of the judging panel for the 2023 awards 
indicates that the panel was composed of "a mix of data visualization experts from different domains 
[and] countries," and included directors, researchers, visual journalists, developers, founders, 
designers and engineers, among other professionals in the field. The record establishes that the 
A wards rely on volunteer judges but does not contain independent evidence from the sponsoring 
organization explaining or documenting the criteria, standards or processes it uses to select judges for 
its panels. As such the evidence does not support the Petitioner's claim that only widely recognized 
individuals who are at the top of the field are selected to participate as judges for the Awards, or 
show that his selection to participate served as recognition as his sustained achievements in the field. 
The Petitioner makes similar claims regarding his performance as a judge for the ______ 
Competition in 2023. He emphasizes that he was included on a judging panel that 
included "the Managing Director from Deloitte Consulting," a "Consulting Solutions Director from 
Microsoft" and other prominent individuals. The record includes the biographies of members of the 
2023 judging panel but does not include information or evidence about ______ process 
or criteria for selecting judges. A screenshot from the competition's web site states that "Phase Two" 
of this annual competition for undergraduate students is "evaluated by a panel of practitioners 
representing various industries who value business analytics." The Petitioner's claim that his selection 
for this judging panel is evidence that he has already sustained a "stellar reputation" that places him 
at "the forefront of the industry" is not adequately supported by the objective evidence in the record. 
4 
Finally, the Petitioner contends that we gave insufficient weight to the criteria used by the British 
Computer Society (BCS) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) to grant him 
membership in these associations. In our decision, we concluded that even if the Petitioner had 
demonstrated that his membership in one or both associations satisfied the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and was indicative of his national or international acclaim in 
the field, the evidence would be insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim because he was granted 
senior membership in IEEE in February 2023 and fellow membership in BCS in June 2023. On 
motion, the Petitioner emphasizes that although he was granted membership to these associations in 
2023, he was required to demonstrate achievements and contributions spanning a period of at least 
five years to meet the associations' respective membership criteria. 
The evidence demonstrates that the application process that resulted in the Petitioner's membership in 
BCS and IEEE involved a review of his career achievements to date, and in that respect, could be 
considered an acknowledgement of his past work in the field. Nevertheless, the tangible recognition 
for such professional achievements is the grant of membership itself: which in this case occurred in 
2023 with respect to both BCS and IEEE. The materials from BCS indicate that its fellow members 
enjoy additional opportunities for "wider exposure and recognition" compared to professional 
members, including eligibility to join the BCS board or committees, to present at BCS events and 
contribute to BCS publications, to participate in the association as a mentor or assessor, and to join 
policy forums, among others. The evidence does not establish, for example, that the title of BCS 
Fellow itself is demonstrative of an individual's sustained recognition or acclaim in the field, or a 
distinction that automatically places a successful applicant for BCS fellowship in the small percentage 
at the very top of the field. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that we misapplied law or 
USCIS policy in our prior decision dismissing his appeal, nor has he established that our decision was 
incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of our decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
Accordingly, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
C. Motion to Reopen 
In support of his motion to reopen, the Petitioner submits new supplemental evidence intended to 
further document his sustained acclaim and professional achievements. This evidence includes copies 
of "increment and promotion letters" he received from I Iin 2018 and 2019 and an offer letter 
froml lfor the position of Sr. Business Intelligence Engineer, dated February 2021. While this 
evidence supports the Petitioner's claim that he held critical roles with I I prior to 2021, the 
Petitioner does not provide sufficient context for his claim that his career progression within this 
company reflects his sustained acclaim and recognition in the field. Similarly, the record does not 
establish how the Petitioner's brief period of employment as an engineer with Iin 2021 resulted 
in or is indicative of his reputation within the industry. The Petitioner does not adequately explain the 
significance of this evidence and how it supports his assertions that he has achieved sustained national 
or international acclaim in his field. 
The Petitioner also provides screenshots of seven online comments posted by readers in response to 
his article titled I Iwhich was published by Towards Data Science 
in 2023. In addition, he posts a comment posted on his Linkedln page from a participant in the 
5 
Competition, who requested his guidance in achieving success 
in the analytics and data science field. The Petitioner maintains that these positive responses to his 
work as an author and judge evidence his receipt of "recognition as a Data Analytics Leader." 
While the individuals who commented on the Petitioner's 2023 article offer praise for his work, this 
small sampling of feedback he received from readers does not offer sufficient support for a 
determination that he has achieved sustained acclaim in the broader field based on his publication 
activities. Evidence in the record indicates that Towards Data Science is a respected online publication 
in the Petitioner's field that has published work by "thousands of contributors"; it does not demonstrate 
that the publication only selects work authored by highly acclaimed professionals whose expertise and 
accomplishments place them at the top of the data science field. The Petitioner has not provided 
sufficient context for his claim that his authorship of an article in this publication in 2023, and the 
reader response to his article, have significantly contributed to his sustained national or international 
acclaim or recognition in the field. 
The Petitioner also submits evidence demonstrating he had several opportunities to participate as a 
speaker at conferences and roundtables in 2023, including: (1) e-mails from I !confirming his 
participation as a faculty speaker at the I (2) invitations from The 
I Ito participate in a posted to the Petitioner's Linkedln page; (3) 
an e-mail froml Iconfirming the Petitioner's upcoming participation as a discussion leader 
forl I monthly roundtable discussions; and ( 4) an invitation posted on the Petitioner's 
Linkedln page requesting his appearance as a guest on the I I podcast. As noted by the 
Petitioner, the USCIS Policy Manual provides that "unsolicited invitations to speak or present at 
nationally or internationally recognized conferences in the field" may be "generally indicative" of [ a 
petitioner's] high standing and recognition for achievements in the field. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
Here, the record does not contain evidence that the Petitioner received "unsolicited invitations" from 
___________ however, the submitted documentation confirms his participation in 
conferences and roundtables held by these organizations in 2023, the same year the petition was filed. 
We view this participation favorably, but, even when reviewed with the previously submitted 
evidence, it is not sufficient to demonstrate the Petitioner's sustained acclaim in his field. The record 
does not contain evidence that the Petitioner participated in, or was invited to participate in, 
conferences in his field prior to 2023. Further, while the two invitations sent to the Petitioner via 
Linkedln appear to be unsolicited, there is insufficient evidence that the representatives from The
I and the I I podcast directed these invitations to the Petitioner based on his 
reputation as a recognized leader in the data science field. For example, the invitation from the 
I lpodcast begins with the statement "I noticed your job title and would like to connect ... " while 
the invitation froml I which invites the Petitioner to an event focused on compliance 
and cybersecurity, suggests that the requestor was not familiar with the Petitioner's background and 
area of expertise in data analysis. 
Finally, the Petitioner requests consideration of additional professional achievements that post-date 
the filing of the petition. Specifically, he provides evidence that he successfully applied for fellowship 
in the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) in November 2023, and evidence that he was 
named a winner of a __________________ at the I IAwards. 
6 
The Petitioner submits information regarding the criteria used by JET to make determinations on 
fellowship membership applications, noting that this level of membership requires "recent significant 
achievements" for a period of at least five years. The record on motion does not contain sufficient 
evidence regarding thel !Award and its selection criteria to demonstrate the significance of 
his appearance on this I list or the national or international recognition associated with the 
award. 
Overall, the newly submitted evidence supports our previous determination that the Petitioner 
achieved recognition for his expertise in his field in the months preceding his filing of the petition in 
2023 and has maintained that recognition as of 2024. His evidence of memberships in professional 
associations, judging activities, speaking engagements, and publications are all dated within this 
period and, when considered together, indicate that his reputation and recognition in the industry are 
on the rise. Although there is no definitive time frame on what constitutes "sustained," the record 
here, including the new evidence submitted on motion, does not demonstrate the Petitioner's 
achievements to date are indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or that 
he has achieved 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. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward that goal. USCIS has long held that 
even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). The Petitioner's 
evidence confirms that he is respected among his peers and that he has recently gained recognition for 
his achievements outside of the organization that employs him. The evidence provided on motion 
suggests that he will likely continue to build that on that reputation in the future. However, considering 
the full measure of the Petitioner's demonstrated achievements, the level of acclaim he has 
documented, and the extent to which his achievements have been recognized in the field over time, he 
has not demonstrated his eligibility for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability as of the 
date he filed this petition. He has not submitted extensive documentation exhibiting that he has already 
attained a level of expertise placing him among that small percentage who have risen the very top of 
the field of endeavor. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, this 
evidence does not establish his eligibility for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy, or that it was incorrect at the time we issued our decision. 
Therefore, the motions will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
7