dismissed EB-1A Case: Data Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 26, 2024 In Re: 32950822 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a data scientist seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(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 she met the initial evidence requirements for this classification through evidence of either 
a major, internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter afChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability, a petitioner (or anyone on the 
petitioner's behalf) must establish that they: 
• Have extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics; 
• Seek to enter the United States to continue work in their area of extraordinary ability; and that 
• Their entry into the United States will prospectively substantially benefit the United States. 
Extraordinary ability must be demonstrated by evidence of sustained national or international acclaim 
as well as extensive documentation that their achievements have been recognized in the field. Section 
203(b )(1) of the Act. 
The implementing regulation further states that the tenn "extraordinary ability" refers only to those 
individuals in "that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." A 
petitioner can demonstrate that they meet the initial evidence requirements for this immigrant visa 
classification through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). If such evidence is unavailable, then they must alternatively provide evidence that meets at 
least three of the ten listed criteria, which call for evidence about lesser awards they may have received, 
published material about them in qualifying media, and their authorship of scholarly articles, among 
other types of evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2),(3). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination, assessing whether the record shows that the 
individual possesses the acclaim and recognition required for this highly exclusive immigrant visa 
classification. 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). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The 
Petitioner holds a masters degree in computer engineering, and is currently employed as a medical 
coding analyst while pursuing a doctoral degree in computer science. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she 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). The Director concluded that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to her authorship of scholarly articles in her field and 
participation as a judge of the work of others in her field. We agree with the Director's conclusions. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she also meets the evidentiary criteria relating to published 
material about her and her work in the field and her original contributions of major significance in her 
field. 1 After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that she has not established that she 
meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessa,y translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner must submit evidence of published material that is about them and 
relates to their work in their field of endeavor. The material must include the title, date, and author 
information, and must be published in a professional or major trade publication or other major 
1 The Petitioner does not renew on appeal her claim to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and (viii), relating to her 
membership in associations in her field which require outstanding achievements of their members and her leading or 
critical roles for organizations having a distinguished reputation. An issue not raised on appeal is waived. See, e.g.. Matter 
ofO-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330,336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 l&N Dec. 657,658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
2 
medium. Also, in compliance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3), materials in a foreign 
language must be accompanied by a certified English translation. 
In support of her claim to this criterion, the Petitioner submits two articles published on websites with 
her appeal, both of which she asserts were previously submitted with her petition. However, the article 
published on the website www.soup.io was not included with the Petitioner's original filing or with 
her response to either of the two requests for evidence (RFE) issued by the Director. Because the 
Petitioner was put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to provide this evidence, we will not 
consider it for the first time on appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l 1) (requiring all requested evidence 
be submitted together at one time); Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (declining 
to consider new evidence submitted on appeal because "the petitioner was put on notice of the required 
evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial"). 
Regarding the article published on www.inspirationfeed.com, the Director concluded that while it was 
about the Petitioner, the evidence did not establish that this website qualified as a professional or major 
trade publication or other major medium. On appeal, the Petitioner repeats information found at the 
bottom of the article in which the website claims "19+ million annual readers." But USCIS need not 
rely on the self-promotional material of the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. 
D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) ( concluding that self-serving assertions 
on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status is not reliable evidence of major media). 
Whether a certain medium qualifies under this criterion depends upon factors such as the intended 
audience and its relative circulation, readership, or viewership. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.2(B)(l ). Despite the Director's specific request for such evidence, the Petitioner did not provide 
further information concerning this website and its viewership compared to others of its type, and thus 
has not shown it to be a professional, major trade, or other major medium. We therefore agree with 
the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions ofmajor significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
To meet the requirements of this criterion, a petitioner must establish that not only have they made 
original contributions, but that they have been of major significance in the field. For example, a 
petitioner may show that the 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. 
See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35. 
Initially, we note that while the Petitioner relies upon previously submitted evidence in claiming this 
criterion on appeal, she did not specifically claim this criterion in her previous submissions. 
Nevertheless, we have reviewed this evidence and conclude that it does not establish that the elements 
of this criterion have been met. In her brief, the Petitioner first highlights five of her papers which 
were either published in scholarly journals or presented at scientific conferences in the field of data 
science. She describes the research and implications presented in each of these papers, and refers to 
evidence of the number of times that others in her field have cited these papers in their own published 
work. In addition, she asserts that each of these articles are widely cited (including one paper cited on 
only two occasions) or have been of significance in her field. But the Petitioner does not provide 
evidence to support her statement of the impact or influence of these papers compared to the published 
3 
works of others in her field. Although the number of citations indicates that they have contributed to 
the field to some degree, that information is not sufficient to establish that the papers have been of 
major significance to the overall field of data science. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the reference letters she submitted demonstrate that her contributions 
have been of major significance. 2 Three of those reference letters were written by individuals who 
collaborated with the Petitioner on data mining and pattern recognition research projects several years 
prior to the filing of her petition. For example, Dr. N-D- describes sequential pattern mining, and 
writes that the Petitioner authored "several high-profile papers" in this area. But she does not explain 
why she considers the three papers she identifies to be high profile or provide any level of detail 
regarding their contribution to the field of data science. 
Similarly, H-R- writes about the applications of data mining and pattern recognition in several 
industries and notes that the Petitioner has made "significant scientific contributions" in those areas, 
but does not identify any specific contributions the Petitioner has made or explain how they may have 
influenced the field. Repeating the language of 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), 
affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Another former collaborator, Dr. V-K-, admits that his recommendation is not based on his direct 
observation of the Petitioner, yet goes on to discuss her work in the area of medical billing, declaring 
that she is "an excellent technical healthcare professional who will make important contributions." He 
later states that her work is in use in the healthcare industry, including software applications being 
used by health insurance providers. But given his admitted lack of personal knowledge of this work 
and his anticipation of its ultimate importance, this evidence does little to establish that the Petitioner 
had already made contributions to her field at the time her petition was filed. In addition, his 
statements are not supported with documentary evidence of the creation or implementation of the 
described work. 
For all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the evidence does not establish that the 
Petitioner meets this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In a final merits determination, we examine and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine 
whether a petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that their achievements have been recognized in the field 
through extensive documentation. 
Here, 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 have 
2 Some of the reference letters mentioned by the Petitioner cannot be found in the record. The Director notified the 
Petitioner in both RFEs that parts of the record appeared to be missing, and provided the names of the writers of letters 
that are in the record. We have reviewed and considered those reference letters that are in the record, including those not 
specifically mentioned in this decision. 
4 
reviewed the entire record and conclude that it does not establish that the Petitioner has the acclaim 
and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for those 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 ofPrice, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of her 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)(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and that she is one of the small percentage who have 
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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5