dismissed EB-1A Case: Data Science

.
MATTER OF F-B-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 2, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM l-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner , a company that develops software for agricultural analytics. seeks to classify the 
Beneficiary 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)(I)(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 I-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 contends that the Beneficiary meets at least three of the ten criteria and that 
he "has attained a level of expertise indicating that ... he is one of that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of his field of endeavor." 
Upon de novo review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(I )(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 benetit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter of F-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 that a beneficiary has a one-time achievement (that 
is a major, internationally recognized award). Alternatively, a petitioner must provide 
documentation for an individual that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, memberships, and published material 
in certain media). 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 beneficiary 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 tirst 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); RUal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. 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." Malter of'Chawathe , 25 I&N Dec . 369, 376 (AAO 201 0). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary is a data scientist with the petitioning organization. Because the Petitioner has not 
indicated or established that the Beneficiary has received a major. internationally recognized award, 
it must show that he satisfies at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C:.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As discussed below , the record supports a finding that the Beneficiary meets 
three criteria, but it does not demonstrate that he has sustained national or international acclaim or is 
among the small percentage at the top of his field. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
In denying the petition , the Director found that the Beneficiary met the following two criteria: 
judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) . The 
record supports these findings , as the Petitioner's documentary evidence indicates that the 
Beneficiary has peer reviewed manuscripts for several journals and authored articles that have 
appeared in professional publications. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneticiary also 
meets the nationally or internationally recognized awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the 
original contributions of major significance criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) , the leading or 
critical role criterion at 8 
C.F.R . * 204.5(h)(3)(viii). and the high salary criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
2 
.
Matter of F-B-
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix) , and that the record includes comparable evidence for the published material 
criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(iii). We find that the exhibits show that the Beneficiary has 
performed in a critical role for the Petitioner. an organization that has a distinguished reputation. 
Accordingly, the Beneficiary has satisfied three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), 
and we will evaluate the totality of the documentary evidence in the context of the final merits 
determination below. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the reqmstte initial evidence, we will evaluate whether the 
Beneficiary has demonstrated , by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim and is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. and 
that his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final 
merits determination, we analyze a beneficiary's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the 
evidence to determine if his successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability 
in the field of endeavor . See section 203(b)(1 )(A)(i) of the 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 the 
Beneficiary's eligibility. 
The record indicates that the Beneficiary received a bachelor of science in animal sciences (2006) 
and a master of science in animal breeding and genetics (2009) at 
From August 2009 until May 2015, the Beneficiary was a research assistant in the 
at the The Beneficiary received his 
Ph.D. from in May 2015. Since July 2015 , the Beneficiary has worked as a data scientist for 
the Petitioner. As mentioned above , the Beneficiary has reviewed manuscripts, authored scholarly 
articles, and performed in a critical role for the petitioning organization. The record, however , does 
not demonstrate that his achievements are reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
Regarding the Beneficiary's service as a peer reviewer, an evaluation of the significance of his 
judging experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence is indicative of the extraordinary 
ability required tor this highly restrictive classification . See Kazarian. 596 f. 3d at 1121-22. The 
record indicates that the Beneficiary has reviewed one article each for 
and 
While the Petitioner provided emails and assignment printouts confirming his 
reviews, and information about 
these journals from their websites, it has not indicated or established 
that his work for these journals is indicative that he is "one of that small percentage who have risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). In addition. the Beneticiarv 
reviewed a chapter for the second edition of The Petitioner , however . h;s 
not established that the Beneficiary 's six instances of manuscript and chapter review from 2015 and 
2016 contribute to a finding of the required sustained national or international acclaim. See sect ion 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) ofthe Act. 
3 
.
Matter qf F-B-
As further documentation relating to the Beneficiary 's judging, the Petitioner offers emails from the 
latter half of 2016 inviting the Beneficiary to become an editorial board member for 
and These emails describe the aforementioned 
journals as "new,'' "newly launched ," or "launched recently." While the Beneficiary was invited to 
serve on their editorial boards, the evidence does not establish that he accepted these invitations and 
actually served in an editorial role. Nor is there supporting evidenc e demonstrating the stature of 
these four journals to show that such invitations are reflective of sustained national or international 
acclaim . 
In many scientific and academic tields , peer review is a routine element of the process by which 
articles are selected for publication or 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 his field. Without evidence that sets the Beneficiary apart from others in 
his tield , such as evidence that he 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 teclmical committee for a reputable conference, the Petitioner has not 
established the Beneficiar y's peer review experience places him among that small percentage at the 
very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(2). 
With regard to the Beneficiary's authorship of scholarly articles, the Petitioner provided evidence 
showing that he author ed three journal articles and presented one conference paper at the 
The Petitioner has not offered 
suflicient documentation to establish that this publication and presentation 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. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 
203(b )( 1 )(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 documentation than that required " for Jesser classific ations. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 
30704 (July 5, 1991). 
As authoring scholarly articles is often inherent to the work of scientists and researcher s, the citation 
history or other evidence of the influence of his articles is an important indicator to determine the 
impact and recognition that his work has had on the field and whether such influenc e has been 
sustained. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. Here, the Petitioner offered a 2017 
citation report indicating that the Beneficiary's 2015 article in has been cited eight times . 
His remaining two journal articles, published in in 2015 and 
in 2016, have been cited twice and once respectively. According to this citation report, 
the Beneficiary's conference paper has not been cited by others in the field. The record does not 
show that the number of citations to the Beneficiary 's research articles (11) demonstrate s a level of 
interest in his work commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim in the field. 
4 
.
Matter 4 F-B-
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "the Beneficiary's scholarly articles were among the most cited 
in the fields of biology and biochemistry for their publication years" and that his 2015 article in 
"was ranked among the top for its year of publication based on the number of citations 
received." The evidence, however, does not support these statements. The record includes a 2005-
2015 chart showing baselines and 
percentiles for various research fields, including " According to that 
chart, which was published in 2015, a 2015 article which had already been cited four times would be 
among the top one percent of papers in its year of publication . The evidence. however, does not 
show that the Beneficiary's article in received four citations in 2015. Rather, the 
2017 " citation report for this article submitted by the Petitioner shows that the 
article did not receive any citations until 2016 .
1 
The Petitioner further contends that the Beneficiary's articles "were published in premier journals 
with high impact." For example, the record includes metrics indicating that 
and were ranked and respectively among "Genetics and Genomics" 
journals. In addition , the Petitioner offered journal rankings for biotechnology listing 
as and as out of 270 journals. That a publication bears a high ranking 
is reflective ofthe publication's overall citation rate. It does not, however, demonstrate the influence of 
any particular author within the field or how an author's research has had an impact within the field. 
With respect to the Beneficiary 's conference presentation , the record includes a review article that 
appeared in This article provides general information 
about the conference and then summarizes topics that were presented by various 
researchers in each of its sessions. The "Developments in quantitative genetics '· section of the 
article discusses the work of multiple scientists in the aforementioned research area, including 
mentioning that the Beneficiary and his coauthors "showed that imprinting 
could lead to a significant 
reduction in the [genome-wide association study] heritability.'' This brief reference to the 
Beneficiary's work is not an indication that his work was considered significant in the field or that it 
garnered acclaim. 
Further, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Beneficiary 's work has been considered 
of major significance and garnered acclaim in the field. The Petitioner has presented three 
recommendation letters that discuss the Beneficiary 's work at in genomics, bioinformatics. 
and plant and animal breeding . The authors indicate that the importance of the Beneficiary's work 
has been demonstrated through its publication in scientific journals and presentation at a conference 
that have been discussed and analyzed above. We recognize that research must add information to 
the pool of knowledge in some way in order to be accepted for publication. presentation , funding. or 
academic credit, but not every data scientist who performs original research or who develops 
customer resources has inherently made a contribution of major significance to the field or has 
otherwise risen to among that small percentage at the very top of the field. 
1 This report reflects five citations to the article in 20 16 and one in 20 17. Nor is there evidence from 
indicating that the article was cited to four times or more in 2015. 
.
Matter of F-B-
Although the recommendation letters pra1se the Beneficiary for his development of genomic 
statistical models and analytical tools at they do not show how his graduate research findings 
have been widely implemented or utilized in the field, reflecting that his original contributions have 
been of major significance and have garnered attention at a level commensurate with those at the 
very top ofthe field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). For example 2, 
an assistant professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at asserts that she 
has utilized the Beneficiary's findings in her research and cited to them. She points to his article in 
and explains that his "results suggest that methylation information can be useful in whole­
genome prediction of complex traits and that it may help to enhance understanding of complex traits 
when epigenetics is under examination." The evidence, however, does not show that the 
Beneficiary's work has substantially influenced the field, or otherwise demonstrates his national or 
international acclaim. As discussed above, the Petitioner has not shown through the Beneficiary's 
citation history or other evidence that his work, once published or presented, is considered of major 
significance in the field or elevates him to among that small percentage at the very top of his field. 
In addition, the Petitioner offers evidence showing that the Beneficiary has received multiple 
invitations to submit manuscripts for journal publication and to provide abstracts or speaking 
proposals for various conferences. The record, however, does not demonstrate that such invitations 
are unusual in the Beneficiary's field and that they set him apart from other researchers at a level 
indicative of national or international acclaim. 
With respect to his work for the petitioning organization, its general counsel and 
corporate vice president, states that the Beneficiary "is the creator of key intellectual property" and 
technical contributions for the company. The Petitioner, however, has not shown that the 
Beneficiary's contributions to its analytic products were considered significant in the field rather 
than mainly affecting data projects for his employer. Nor has the Petitioner shown that the 
Beneficiary's contributions to its products and services have garnered him sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
further explains that the Beneficiary "is the second in command at our 
group" and develops data science resources that are the core benefit or the company's membership 
offerings. He further states that the Beneficiary performs "a strategically significant role in the 
context of our platform development, which is the technical backbone of our business.'' The 
evidence includes internal communications and other company documents that sufficiently 
demonstrate the Beneficiary's critical role for the Petitioner. In addition, the record contains various 
articles discussing the company, its business successes, and product otlerings. This documentation 
includes articles about the petitioning entity in the 
and While these articles demonstrate that the 
petitioning organization has a distinguished reputation, this evidence, considered with the record as a 
2 While we discuss only a sample of the letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
.
Matter of F-B-
whole, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Beneficiary's national or international acclaim at the very 
top of the field. 
The Petitioner asserts that the work described in the aforementioned articles was "created by the 
Beneficiary, and therefore the articles presented are essentially articles about the Beneficiary's 
work." The articles, however, are about the petitioning organization and they do not single out or 
even mention the Beneficiary. For example, while the articles in and discuss the 
company and its founders and the Beneficiary is not part of this 
news coverage. As the articles presented are not about the Beneficiary, they are not evidence that 
his reputation extends beyond his company or that he personally has garnered sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
The Petitioner also maintains that the Beneficiary has "served in a critical role for an 
organization that the record shows has a distinguished reputation. The evidence includes a letter 
from a professor of animal breeding and genetics at discussing the 
Beneficiary's graduate research projects at and noting that he provided services as a translator 
for course materials and visiting Chinese delegations. While describes the role the 
Beneficiary "held within my research group" at he does not explain how the Beneficiary's 
position as a graduate student and research assistant was leading or critical to the university. In 
general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself~ while a critical role is one in which an 
individual has contributed to the success or standing of the organization. The Petitioner did not 
provide an organizational chart or other similar evidence to establish where the Beneficiary's role fit 
within the overall hierarchy of The submitted documentation does not differentiate him from 
the other research scientists employed by the university, let alone its tenured faculty and principal 
investigators. Nor does the evidence establish that the Beneficiary has contributed to the university in 
a way that was of substantial importance to its success or standing, or indicative of sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
The record includes a letter from stating that the Beneficiary "received a 
1 00.000-dollar 
scholarship from the company during the years of2009 to 2013 to support his joint Ph.D. 
program in the and the · In addition. the 
aforementioned letter notes that the scholarship was based on his academic "background in 
quantitative genetics and statistics prior to his Ph.D. program.'' Although the scholarship served to 
finance the Beneficiary's graduate study and research training for a future field of endeavor, the 
Petitioner has not offered sut1icient evidence to show that this graduate scholarship is indicative that 
the Beneficiary is nationally or internationally acclaimed or has risen to the very top of the field. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner contends that its receipt of venture capital funding is evidence of the 
Beneficiary's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field. First, we note that the record does not establish venture capital investment is a recognized 
award for excellence in the field. While investors likely consider the past record of an entrepreneur 
as a factor in their funding decisions, venture capital investment is principally designed to fund 
future business activities, not to honor or recognize past achievement. Moreover, the record does not 
.
Matter of F-B-
include evidence from representatives of the funding organizations (such as 
or ) singling out the Beneficiary or his work as the reason for their 
investment. 
With regard to the Beneficiary's salary , the Petitioner provided two of his pay statements from 2017 
reflecting monthly earnings of $9,583.34, or $115,000 annually. In addition. the Petitioner otlers 
"Online Wage Library" Foreign Labor Certification "Wage Results" for 
Southwest Iowa, and Texas indicating that Level 4 (fully 
competent) yearly prevailing wages for "Biological Scientists" (including "Bioinformatics 
Scientists") were $102,398, $108,597, $82,056, $76,918, $95,056, $89,523, and $64.168, 
respectively. 3 The Petitioner also offered salary information from reflecting that a 
"Senior Data Analyst" commands median yearly earnings of $76,422. These prevailing wage and 
median earnings statistics, however, are not sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's salary 
places him among that small percentage at the very top of his tiel d. 
Furthermore, although the Petitioner compares the Beneficiary's compensation to that of biological 
scientists and senior data analysts, the record does not show that the services they perform are 
sufficiently similar to the Beneficiary's job duties. For example, states that the 
Beneficiary is "a senior-level Data Scientist" who "lead[ s] the development of quantitative models 
for use in analyzing agronomic data." He further explains that the Beneficiary "has been responsible 
for the development of our data processing infrastructure, procedures, and standards; laying the 
technical software foundation on which our quantitative analys[ e ]s are based; and serving as the in­
house expert on data science matters." However, according to the PayScale.com description , "[a] 
senior data analyst specializes in collecting data, organizing that data, and then analyzing the data." 
Unlike the Beneficiary's job, a senior data analyst is not responsible tor development of quantitative 
models or data processing infrastructure. 4 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification tor the Beneficiary, intended for 
individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than tor individuals progressing toward 
the top. users has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability'' standard. Matter (~(Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
3 
A "prevailing wage" is defined as "trade and public work wages paid to the majority of workers in a specific area." See 
http://www.businessdictionary.com /definition/prevailing-wage.html, accessed on January 26. 2018, copy incorporated 
into the record of proceedings. 
4 
According to the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), wmputer and inl(mnation 
research scientists srccializing in ·'data science'" (the Bend1ciary·s specialty) '"\Hitc algmithms that <Ire used to dl'tcct 
and analyze patterns in very large dat<Jsets. They improve \\ ay~ to sort. rnan<Jge. and display data. Comruter scient tsts 
build algorithms into soliwarc package~ ihat make the data r:asicr for analysts to usc.. The OOH states that "[t]he 
median annual wage for computer and in formation research scientists was $111,840 in. May 20 16'' and that "the highest 
I 0 percent earned more than $169,680. " This information reflects that the Beneficiary' s $115,000 salary is just above 
the median, but well below the top decile in this field. See Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Department of 
Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer and Information Research Scientists, on the Internet 
at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology /computer-and-information-research-scientists.htm 
(visited January 26, 2018, and incorporated into the record of proceedings). 
8 
.
Matter of F-B-
(Assoc. Comm'r. 1994) . While the Petitioner need not establish that there is no one more 
accomplished than the Beneficiary to qualify for the classification sought, we tind the record 
insufficient to demonstrate that he has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the 
small percentage at the top of his field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
C. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note the record of proceedings reflects that the Beneficiary received 0-1 status, a classification 
reserved for nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition tiled on behalf of the Beneficiary, the prior approval does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on different standard -
statute, regulations , and case law. Many Form I-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS 
approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g. Q Data Consulting. Inc. v. IN,)', 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 
(D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. olJustice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999) ; Fedin Brothers 
Co. Ltd.. 724 F. Supp. at 1103. Furthermore, our authority over a USCIS service center, the office 
responsible for adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition , is comparable to the relationship 
between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a 
nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individuaL we are not bound to follow that finding in the 
adjudication of another immigration petition. See Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra . 2000 WL 
282785 at *2. 
III. CONCL USION 
For the reasons discussed above , the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary's eligibility as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofF-B- ID# 875173 (AAO Feb. 2. 20 18) 
9