dismissed EB-1A Case: Data Science

MATTER OF Z-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 24, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a home and real estate marketplace, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, its senior 
manager in data science, 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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Beneficiary had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, 
of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief,. arguing that the Beneficiary meets at least three of the ten 
criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has 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, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Matter of Z-, Inc. 
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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she 
must provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if it is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily 
apply to a beneficiary's occupation. 
Where a petitioner meets 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 the individual 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). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "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." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner employs the Beneficiary as a senior manager in data science, whose work focuses on 
computationally driven analytics. Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the 
Beneficiary has 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). In denying the petition, the Director 
found that the Beneficiary met only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, original contributions 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary meets two additional criteria, discussed 
below. We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a 
finding that the Beneficiary satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
2 
Matter of Z-, Inc. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions o.f major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Although the Director concluded that the Beneficiary fulfilled this criterion, the record does not 
reflect that he has made original contributions of major significance in his field.1 In order to satisfy 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only has a beneficiary 
made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. For example, 
a petitioner may show that a beneficiary's contributions have been widely implemented throughout 
the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of 
major significance in the field. The Petitioner claimed the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion 
based on his original research in drug discovery financing, as demonstrated through media reports, 
presentations and publications, and recommendation letters. 
As it relates to media reports, the Petitioner provided screenshots from three websites reporting on 
two of the Beneficiary's published papers regarding the application of "megafund" financing 
methods to certain drug discovery research. Specifically, the screenshots from mitsloan.mit.edu 
relate to his Science Translational Medicine article, and the screenshots from scientificamerican.com 
and orpha.net relate to his Drug Discovery Today article. The Petitioner, however, did not 
demonstrate that the reporting of the Beneficiary's two papers on three websites is consistent with 
the field recognizing his research as having had major significance. Moreover, the screenshots focus 
on the prospective potential impact of the petitioner's research, rather than how his work already 
qualifies as a contribution of major significance in the field. For instance, the mitsloan.mit.edu 
screenshots state that the Science Translational Medicine article "demonstrates the potential of a 
new financing technique," "potentially unlocks new levels of funding," and "megafunds may be 
particularly well-suited to fund orphan drug development" (emphasis added). Similarly, the 
orphan.net screenshots indicate that the Drug Discovery Today article indicates that megafund 
portfolios "could attract capital into orphan drug portfolios," "could deliver potentially, albeit 
uncertain, high returns on investment," and "are only indicative of megafund potential" (emphasis 
added). 
In addition, the record reflects that the Petitioner provided evidence showing that the Beneficiary 
presented at five conferences and authored nine papers. Participation in a conference demonstrates 
that his findings were shared with others and may be acknowledged as original based on their 
selection for presentation. However, the Petitioner did not establish that the selection of 
Beneficiary's papers for presentation at conferences and requests for him to speak, in-and-of­
themselves show the major significance of his contributions. Publications and presentations are not 
sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." 
See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. Here, the 
1 We note that the Director's decision does not identify the Beneficiary's original contributions or the evidence on which 
he based his finding for this criterion. 
3 
.
Matter of Z-, Inc. 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that his presenting and speaking engagements were majorly 
significant in the field. 
Further, regarding the Beneficiary's published material, the Petitioner submitted evidence reflecting 
that his top three articles were cited 29, 26, and 19 times, respectively. The Petitioner, however, did 
not show that such citations are indicative that the Beneficiary's work has significantly impacted or 
influenced the field. For example, the Petitioner did not present evidence indicating that the 
Beneficiary's work has been singled out as being particularly important, highly impactful, or that his 
research on a specific topic has been cited extensively throughout the field. Moreover, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that his other unpublished works, such as his dissertation, rise to a level 
consistent with original contributions of major significance in the field. 
The record also shows that the Beneficiary is credited on a patent as one of the inventors for 
A patent may recognize the originality of an invention or idea 
but does not necessarily establish that it is a contribution of major significance in the field. The 
Petitioner provided only one recommendation letter that mentioned the Beneficiary's patent. 
Specifically, associate professor at the confirmed 
that the Beneficiary co-invented the patent and described the method. however, did 
not explain or demonstrate how the patent has impacted or influenced the field or is otherwise 
considered an original contribution of major significance by the field. 
Finally, the Petitioner provided recommendation letters that discussed the Beneficiary's work 
without demonstrating the impact or influence of his work in the field. Similar to the websites 
mentioned above, the letters recounted the Beneficiary's findings, indicated their publications in 
journals, and discussed the potential impact without showing how his research is already considered 
to be of major significance in the field.2 For example, founder and managing 
director for identified three papers authored by the Beneficiary on the topic 
of drug development financing, and claimed that his "work has broken new ground and will help to 
establish new types of financings that can impact and improve drug development" ( emphasis added). 
Likewise, professor at discussed their 
collaborations and asserted that "[t]his work provides a roadmap and useful tools for the real-life 
implementation of such models, which will help get new and better drugs to patients sooner" 
( emphasis added). Although the authors, such as ( chief business officer at the 
and ( chief scientific officer at ) opined 
that they "believe these significant contributions clearly establish that [the Beneficiary] meets the 
requirements to be designated as a person of extraordinary ability in the computationally driven 
analytics field," they did not explain or demonstrate how the Beneficiary's contributions have been 
majorly significant to the overall field beyond summarizing his findings.3 Repeating the language of 
2 Although we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitt ed with Certain Form I-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudi cator 's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
4 
Matter of Z-, Inc. 
the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajj'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, 
Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the Beneficiary's status in the field 
without providing specific examples of how his contributions rise to a level consistent with major 
significance. Letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how an individual's 
contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122 (finding USCIS' conclusion that 
"letters from physics professors attesting to [the petitioner's] contributions in the field" were 
insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language"). Moreover, USCIS need not 
accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. 
Dist. 1990). Again, the documentation discusses the possibility of future impact or influence 
without demonstrating that the Beneficiary's work is already a contribution of major significance to 
the overall field. 
Because the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has made original contributions of major 
significance in the field consistent with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), we withdraw the 
decision of the Director for this criterion. 
Evidence qf the alien's authorship qf scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Director determined that the Beneficiary satisfied this criterion. As discussed above, the 
Beneficiary authored scholarly articles in professional journals. Accordingly, the Petitioner 
established that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary performed in a critical role for its organization.4 As it 
relates to a critical role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is 
of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. 5 It is not 
the title of a petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role 
is or was critical. 6 
http://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a 
ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). 
4 The Petitioner does not contend that the Beneficiary performed in a leading role for its organization or that he 
performed in a leading or critical role for other organizations or establishments that have distinguished reputations. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at I 0. 
6 Id. 
5 
.
Matter of Z-, Inc. 
The record contains two letters from employees of the Petitioner who discussed the Beneficiary's 
works and projects. For instance, chief analytics officer, stated that the Beneficiary 
made "significant contributions" to the Petitioner's mission and indicated that he "contributed 
several research and works around an automated valuation model." Although 
attested that the Beneficiary made "critical contributions," he did not provide specific 
information establishing how those contributions were of significant importance to the outcome of 
the organization's activities. 7 Similarly, vice president of data science and 
engineering, claimed that the Beneficiary "has made critical contributions to the company" and listed 
six of his projects. however, did not sufficiently explain how the Beneficiary's projects 
and research were important to the Petitioner's success. Moreover, using language from the statute 
or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. at 1108, afj'd, 905 F. 2d at 41; Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5. 
Here, the submitted letters do not contain detailed and probative information that specifically address 
how the Beneficiary performed in a critical role. 8 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The record reflects that the Petitioner initially hired the Beneficiary in 2015 as a senior data scientist 
earning a base salary $120,000 per year, and his salary later increased to $150,000. In 2017, the 
Petitioner promoted the Beneficiary to a senior manager making a base salary of $170,100 per year. 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that a beneficiary's salary or 
remuneration is high relative to the compensation paid to others working in the field.9 
Regarding the Beneficiary's position as a senior data scientist, the Petitioner provided evidence from 
flcdatacenter.com showing that Level 4 Wages for "computer and information research scientists" in 
the Washington metropolitan area earn $159,266. 10 Moreover, the Petitioner offered 
screenshots from glassdoor.com displaying that the average "senior data scientist" in 
Washington earns $157,845 per year. In addition, the Petitioner submitted screenshots from bis.gov 
reflecting the national median pay for "computer and information research scientists" is $111,840, 
and screenshots from I.salary.com indicating the average data scientist in the Washington 
area is $134,809. Thus, two screenshots show that the Beneficiary's salary as a "senior data 
scientist" was less than the median wage for others in his field in the Washington area. With 
regard to the evidence of the average wages of "computer and information research scientists" and 
7 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at I 0. 
s Id. 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 11. 
10 The Level 4 wage relates to fully competent employees. See Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, 
http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_l I _2009.pdfat page 7, accessed on July 13, 2018, and 
incorporated into record of proceedings. 
.
Matter of Z-, Inc. 
data scientists, the Petitioner has not shown that these data pools represent a relevant basis of 
comparison for the Beneficiary's salary as a senior data scientist. See Matter of Price, 20 l&N Dec. 
953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA 
Tour golfers); see also 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). Here, the 
Petitioner 's e vidence does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary earned a salary placing him at the 
high end of the spectrum for wages of other senior data scientists. 
As it relates to the Beneficiary's position as a senior manager in data science, the Petitioner provided 
screenshots from comparably.com showing that "senior managers" in data science in 
Washington earned an average of $123,000 per year, and the national average is $191,666 per year. 
Further, the Petitioner submitted screenshots from flcdatacenter.com showing that Level 4 Wages for 
"computer and information systems managers" in the Washington metropolitan area earn 
$181,266. This evidence reflects that the Beneficiary commands a salary that is lower than the 
national average and is also less than fully competent employees in the Washington area. 
Accordingly , we find the record insufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary commanded a high 
salary in relation to other senior managers in data science. 
The Petitioner also argues that the Beneficiary earned $206,809 in 2016 and $209, 121 as of 
November 2017. A review of the paystubs submitted by the Petitioner reflects that the Beneficiary 
receives additional incentives as part from his salary such as "Restricted Stock," "Referral Bonus," 
and "Hack Week Bonus GU." These extra incentives are not part of the Beneficiary's salary. While 
the regulatory language at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) also allows for evidence of "other significantly 
high remuneration for services in relation to others in the· field," the Petitioner did not provide 
evidence showing that these bonuses and other incentives are significantly high compared to other 
senior data scientists or senior managers. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary fulfills this criterion. 
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 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 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the Beneficiary's acclaim and recognition required for the 
classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restnctlve visa classification for the Beneficiary, intended for 
individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward 
the top. 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. at 954. Here, 
Matter qfZ-, Inc. 
the Petitioner has not shown that recognition of the Beneficiary's work is indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with 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 )(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary qualifies for 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of Z-, Inc., ID# 1561731 (AAO Sept. 24, 2018) 
8