dismissed EB-1A Case: Data Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L-D-B-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 22,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a data science researcher, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability 
in the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(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 although the 
Petitioner satisfied four of the regulatory criteria, of which she has to meet at least three, she did not 
show sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that she is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits an additional document and a brief, arguing that she has sustained 
the required acclaim and has risen to the very top of her field. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified 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 L-D-B-
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). Alternately, 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). 
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. 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). 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 is a research data scientist with the company As the Petitioner has not 
indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally recognized award, she must 
satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the following four criteria: judging under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), original contributions under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), scholarly articles under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), and high salary under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). The Petitioner's 
documentary evidence indicates 
that she has edited manuscripts for several journals, authored 
articles that have appeared in professional publications, and earns a high salary at her current 
employer. Accordingly, the Petitioner has satisfied three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). Although 
we find the record does not support the Director's determination that she 
has made original contributions of major significance in the field, we will evaluate the totality of her 
documentary evidence in the context ofthe final merits determination below. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether the Petitioner 
has demonstrated, by a preponderan_ce of the evidence, that she has sustained national or 
2 
.
Matter of L-D-B-
international acclaim and is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and 
that her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final 
merits determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the 
evidence to determine if her successes are sufficient to demonstrate that she has extraordinary ability 
in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown her 
eligibility. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner received a bachelor of engineering at 
(India) in 2003, a master of science at (Germany) in 2005, and a 
doctor of philosophy at (the Netherlands) in 2009. Early in her 
career, the Petitioner held research assistant positions at various educational institutions in which she 
attended. Later, she worked as a post-doctoral research scientist at the 
Currently, the Petitioner is a research data scientist at · As mentioned above, the 
Petitioner has reviewed manuscripts, authored scholarly articles, and commands a high salary. The 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that her achievements , however, are reflective of a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contempl.ated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). 
Regarding the Petitioner's work as the judge of others, an evaluation of the significance of her 
judging experience is sanctioned under Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-11, to determine if such 
evidence is indicative of the extraordinary ability required for this highly restrictive classification. 
The Petitioner argues that she has completed peer reviews for the most significant venues in her field 
and more reviews for the top ranked journals than the vast majority of her peers, separating her from 
individuals doing routine work. She provided emails and letters showing that she conducted 
approximately 20 reviews of manuscripts and papers for publication in journals and presentation at 
conferences. Specifically, the evidence reflects that the Petitioner reviewed four manuscripts for 
three of the publications and 14 papers for 
conferences. In addition, the Petitioner reviewed two papers for presentation at the 
The Petitioner, however, did not establish that her manuscript and paper review reflects the required 
sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b )(I )(A) of the Act. Although the 
Petitioner established that the publications were in the top five for automation and control 
theory, transportation, and automatic engineering, she only conducted four manuscript reviews , one 
in 2008, one in 2015, and two in 2016. In addition, the majority of her reviews were for conferences 
in 2008 and 2016. In fact, 13 of her 70 documented overall reviews were for the same two 
1 The Petitioner's curriculum vitae does not document her professional or academic research experience in her field 
between October 201 I and June 20 15. 
2 While the Petitioner provided recommendation letters that mention her judging capability , they make no claim that her 
judging experience is commensurate with "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. " 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) . 
3 
.
Matter of L-D-B-
conferences. 3 Further, her evidence indicates that while she performed two journal reviews and 
seven paper reviews for two conferences in 2016 and one journal review in 2015, her next most 
recent evaluations occurred in 2008, one for a journal and seven for a conference, and then in 2007 
and 2006 for conferences. She did not show any reviews from 2009 to 2014.4 In summary, the 
Petitioner documented that she reviewed manuscripts for three journals and papers for five 
conferences, which she has not established is reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" 
as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. at 59. 
The Petitioner submits screenshots from indicating that she conducted 31 reviews. The 
screenshots, however, do not list or indicate the papers or manuscripts confirming her evaluations 
and accounting for the other 11 reviews, and they do not state the number of reviewers in the pool. 
In addition, the screenshots also state that "automatically adds review records for about 40 
journals ... with more than 800 journals and 400,000 profiles to date," but "[u]sers can 
manually add reviews submitted to non- journals, with a verification method planned to be 
introduced later." Thus, even though the Petitioner indicates that her 31 reviews from 
shows that she is in the percentile, she has not verified the accuracy of the 31 reviews reflected 
irt given that she presented other evidence documenting 20 reviews and can manually input 
unverified data. In addition, she has not shown how many other reviewers were in her field to place 
her in the percentile 5 and the information only relates to those who utilize 
Accordingly, the significant gaps in her judging experience, as well as the number of journals and 
conferences, are not reflective of"sustained" acclaim. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. 
Furthermore, in many scientific and academic fields, peer review is a routine element of the process 
by which books and articles are selected for publication or for presentation at conferences. 
Participation in the peer review process does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field. Without evidence that sets her 
apart from others in her field, such as evidence that she has a consistent history of completing a 
substantial number of review requests relative to others, served in an editorial position for a 
distinguished journal or publication, or chaired a technical committee for a reputable conference,6 
the Petitioner has not established her peer review experience places her among that small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
3 The Petitioner reviewed six papers for presentation at the 2016 
and a letter from chair at the 2008 indicates 
that the Petitioner reviewed approximately seven papers for that conference. 
4 The information she provided to appears to confirm the lack of any review from 2009 to 20 14. 
5 Comparing an individual's ranking to a small pool of reviewers may be less accurate than to a larger pool of reviewers. 
6 Although the Director indicated in his decision that the Petitioner participated as a committee chair at the 2008 
the record does not support that finding. Instead, the letter from stated that the Petitioner was a 
committee member and peer reviewer. In addition, the Petitioner provided a screenshot from the symposium's website 
that lists her as I of at least 37 committee reviewers. The Petitioner does not claim, nor does the record reflect, that she 
chaired a conference or symposium committee. 
4 
.
Matter of L-D-B-
With regard to her authorship of scholarly articles , the Petitioner presented evidence showing that 
she authored four papers in professional journals , one book chapter, and ten papers presented at 
conferences. The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation to establish that this 
publication record is consistent with being among the small percentage at the top of the field or 
having a "career of acclaimed work." H.R. Rep. No. at 59. In addition , as the Petitioner has not 
published any scholarly work since 2013, she has not shown that her publications reflect the required 
sustained national or international acclaim. 7 See section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The commentary 
for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b )(I )(A)(i) of the Act provide that the "intent 
of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this 
regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive document ation than that required" 
for lesser classifications . 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991 ). The Petitioner contends that 
while she left academia in 2011, thereby suggesting the reason for her lack of recent publications , 
she maintained a level of recognition as demonstrated by her high salary at Even if we 
were persuaded by the Petitioner's argument , she did not show that, for the period that she was 
active in academia , her publication record placed her among the small percentage at the top of her 
field. 
As authoring scholarly articles is often inherent to the work of scientists and researchers, the citation 
history or other evidence of the influence of her articles is an important indicator to determine the 
impact and recognition that her work has had on the field and whether such influence has been 
sustained. For example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by the Petitioner 
would provide solid evidence that her work has been recognized and that other researchers have 
been influenced by her work. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is appropri ate 
pursuant to Kazarian , 596 F. 3d at 1122. Here, the Petitioner offered evidence that her 2011 journal 
article has been cited 85 times. Her next two highest articles, published in 2007 and 2008, have been 
cited 44 and 34 times respectively. In addition , her two most recent articles, published in 2012 and 
2013, have been cited 4 and 25 times respectively . She did not establish , however, that such rates of 
citation are sufficient to demonstrate a level of interest in her field commensurate with sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred by comparing her citation rates to those 
of 
her references, whose citations number in the thousands , and she submits evidence that one of her 
articles was in the top 1% of most cited articles in her field for the year 2011 and three others placed 
in the top 10% for 2007, 2008, and 2012, respectively. She states that she therefore has "four papers 
that objectively fall within a range of citations that bibliometrics research suggests should be 
considered highly cited or excellent." However , the record does not demonstrate that having four 
papers in such a range places the Petitioner among the small percentage at the very top of her field or 
demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); section 
203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act. 
7 
The record indicates that she published one article in 2013, a book chapter and an article in 20 I 2, one article in 20 I 0 
and 20 I I, one article and three conference papers in 2009, four conference papers in 2008 , and one conference paper in 
2006 and 2007. 
5 
.
Matter of L-D-B-
Further, while citations are not the only way to gauge the importance or recognition of an 
individual's work, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner's work has been 
considered significant and garnered acclaim · in the field. The Petitioner presented six 
recommendation letters that discuss the Petitioner's earlier work in traffic management and 
intelligent vehicles. The authors indicate that the Petitioner's work has been "a true breakthrough," 
which has been demonstrated through the publication of her work in scientific journals and 
presentation at conferences that has been discussed and analyzed above. 
Although the letters praise the Petitioner for her development of models and simulations, they do not 
show how her contributions have been widely implemented or utilized in the field, reflecting that her 
I 
original contributions have been of major significance and have garnered attention at a level among 
that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). For 
instance, the authors discuss the Petitioner's work in theoretical terms rather than actual or 
demonstrated situations. faculty research associate at the 
stated that the Petitioner's techniques aid transportation officials in identifying immediate 
and efficient re-routes in a catastrophic situation where one route is unsafe to drive. However, 
did not provide examples of these techniques having been applied in the field. In addition, 
associate professor at in China, maintained that the automated 
highway systems reduce costs, spur more efficient fuel consumption, provide safer conditions, and 
reduce overall travel times. Likewise, did not claim that the Petitioner's work has in fact 
resulted in any of these positive changes for automated highway systems. 
The record also contains a letter from CEO of who indicated that the 
Petitioner "is constantly developing new model-driven approaches to optimize the automatic control 
of network traffic." As an example, discussed the Petitioner's 
assistance in a model-based optimization for ' ' 
a tool that allows customers to optimize 
the content offsite and offline on social networks. also stated that ' was 
selected to be introduced at the conference in 2016, and the Petitioner offered 
screenshots promoting'' 'reflecting that it is "[a]lready trusted by many publishers," such 
as Even though it appears that the Petitioner has made significant contributions to 
s he did show how they are of major significance to the field. She did not, for instance, 
submit evidence demonstrating that she has been recognized or garnered attention for her work on 
As noted previously, the Petitioner established that she has commanded a high salary with her 
current employer, The Petitioner commenced employment with in July 2015, 
approximately one year prior to the filing of the petition. As indicated above, from 2003 to 2011, 
the Petitioner previously held research assistant positions at various educational institutions in which 
she attended and worked as a post-doctoral research scientist at the Here, 
the Petitioner has not shown that she has consistently commanded a high salary but instead that she 
only recently earned a high salary based on her employment with The submission of her 
latest salary is not reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by 
Matter of L-D-B-
Congress and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of 
the Act; H.R. Rep. No. at 59. 
Finally, the Petitioner contends that while there may not be an individual regulatory criterion that 
sufficiently establishes her extraordinary ability, all of the evidence should be collectively 
considered to determine her eligibility. In this case, the Petitioner has reviewed manuscripts, 
authored scholarly articles, and commands a high salary. The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive 
visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than 
for individuals 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 of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r. 1994). While the 
Petitioner need not establish that there is no one more accomplished than her to qualify for the 
classification sought, we find the record insufficient to demonstrate that she has sustained national or 
international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of her field. See section 
203(b)(1)(A)(i) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of L-D-B-, ID# 451559 (AAO Aug. 22, 2017)