dismissed EB-1A Case: Machine Learning And Artificial Intelligence

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 6864538 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 23, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a research scientist , 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 that the Petitioner did not 
establish , as required , that he meet s at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this 
classification. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369 , 375 (AAO 2010) . The Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this matter de novo. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 
I&NDec . 537 , 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review , we agree with the Director 's determination 
that the Petitioner did not meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria and , accordingly, we will 
dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) 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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability , and 
(iii) the alien 's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
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 demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through 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 sufficient qualifying 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. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a research scientist in the field of machine learning and artificial intelligence. He 
received his bachelor of rgineering and master of engineering degrees in computer science and 
technology froml _ University in 2006 and 2008, respectively. The Petitioner completed his 
doctoral studies in electrical and computer engineering at University of I O I 
~6. As of the date of filing, he had previous work experience as a research scientist for 
~ as a research intern fo~~--------~~ and as a graduate research assistant at 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he 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). The Petitioner claims to meet three of the ten evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), summarized below: 2 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; and 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles. 
The Director found that the Petitioner met two evidentiary criteria, related to judging and authorship 
of scholarly articles. The record reflects that the Petitioner has participated as a judge of the work of 
others in his field by peer reviewing manuscripts for conferences and professional journals in his field, 
consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). He has also written scholarly articles in the field, including 
several journal articles and more than 20 papers published in conference proceedings, under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
1 The record reflects that the Petitioner accepted a position as a senior research scientist withl I in August 
2018, subsequent to the filing of the petition. 
2 The Director determined that the Petitioner initially claimed to meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), relating to 
membership in associations in the field which require outstanding achievement of their members, but did not submit 
sufficient evidence to satisty the criterion. The Petitioner does not contest this determination on appeal and therefore we 
deem this issue to be waived. See, e.g., Matter of M-A-S-, 24 T&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
2 
However, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that 
he had made original contributions of major significance in his field. After reviewing all the evidence 
in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner did not meet this third criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions, but that they have been of major significance in the field. 3 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he has made three significant contributions to the field of machine 
learning, deep learning, and artificial intelligence. 4 Specifically, he asserts that he meets this criterion 
because he has authored scholarly articles that other scientists have relied on or cited to, he has 
presented his findings in international conferences, and he has submitted letters from other scientists 
in his field who discuss and praise his research contributions. 
As a preliminary matter, we note that two of the three original contributions identified by the Petitioner 
on appeal are based on research that he published or presented subsequent to the filing of this petition 
in March 2018. Specifically, he ,laims e)igihi)itv under this criterion based on bis· CD deve)ooment 
of methods for compression of l I 
'---------,,-------.===============l.1...; ....:a::.:;;n~d~{2=.)L.....:d::..::e:....:.v-=.el;:;.:;-opment of a novel 
regularization method for I~-----~ .---------. I. 
Letters froml 1,1 l and note that the Petitioner's article 
discussing his development of I I was published by the 
I - I 2018, and they do not claim to have been f~am-i-li_a_r_w_i_th_t_b-is-re_s_e_a_rc_b_o_r_io_r_t_o_tb-a~t 
time.) The Petitioner's curriculum vitae listed his co-authored paper ~ _ ] 
I las a publication that was "Under Preparation or Under Review" and 
"submitted to I I 2018." The Petitioner's Google Scholar citation index provided at the time of 
filing, which included publications from 2018 and therefore appeared to be recently printed, did not 
include any publications with titles mentioning.___~---~------' Finally, we note that none 
of the five expert opinion letters provided with the Petitioner's initial submission mentioned his 
research in this area. 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
http://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda (stating that although funded and published work may be 
"original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
4 At the time of filing, the Petitioner provided letters frottj l l land I who 
discuss his research and contributions in additional areas within his field. The Petitioner does not reference these research 
contributions or these letters on appeal or indicate that he meets the original contributions criterion based on this evidence. 
Therefore, althouoh we have reviewed and considered these let~will not discuss them here. 
5 The 201 sC::J' conference was held inD2018. See https:l___JConferences/2018 (last visited on Apr. 14. 2020). 
3 
The evidence also reflects that the Petitioner developed thep regularization method after j~ining 
1 
I I in August 2018. Director of O ,I states that 
regularization "is an important update of 's artifi¢al..inttjligence framework since the 
World Congress inl 12018," and,,__ __ ~ ofL___J University indicates that he and his 
colleagues have been discussing thee=] regularization method "since this method was released in 
1 12019." 
The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been 
satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A 
petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. 
Matter oflzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). Therefore, the Petitioner cannot establish that 
he meets this criterion based on research that was published subsequent to the filing of the petition. 
The last of the three original contributions highlighted by the Petitioner on appeal is his development of 
..._ ______________ __. method, research that he ori inall ubli12,LL>,""--'.U....""'-'--'r'· He 
specifically references two previously submitted letters fro and both 
professors with the National University ot1 I ~-~emphasizes the import.,...... ................... 7-_ __J 
I J in artificial intelligence, and states that he considers the Petitioner's ,.__ _ ___, to be 
"extraordinarily important" and a "major breakthrough" in thel I field. He notes that it 
has "intrigued a lot of researchers and engineers in the field" and that it is "open sourced on GitHub" 
where it "greatly facilitates the research progress of other methods." I further 
states that he is aware of others who have employed the method for their projects, and that he 
believes it "will generate greater impact in the future.".__ __ _. who co-authored the Petitioner's paper, 
describes thd I method as "a significant contribution to the machine learning literature," noting 
that it "significantly improves the potential o~ I methods," and has "gained considerable 
impact on the machine learning community." He states that his students have used thel biethod 
since 2016 and have been developing newl I methods inspired by the method. 
In addition to these letters, the Petitioner submitted a letter froml I a scientist at 
the Institute of '-----,--..------,-....,..,..,...-.-=---~ who describes the Petitioner's I I method as 
"revolutionary'," noting that it "is the first work in thel I literature that demonstrates 
the merit [of] I I in terms ofl I discovery." He states that I I has been highly 
regarded as an important work in the I I literature" and indicates his belief that it "will 
attract more attention and create more impact in the machine-learning community in the near future." 
b 
I ofD who also co-authored the Petitioner's aper," notes in his letter thatD 
"has been widely regarded as an important L-...r-------'--...,,ethod by the lobal research 
munities" stating that methods capable oflearning .__ ____ ___, structur,es_1_· ..___---.-___ _. 
'have "tremendous value in both theory and applications in various areas.".__ ___ ~ notes that 
method "im roves the usability ofl I' He states that "a lot of research 
works in " including his own publications, "are either based on the idea of [the 
'--~--~---' 
Petitioner's] or directly adopted the methods." 
Although these letters explain the Petitioner's research and note its novelty and value, they do not 
explain with specificity why the I I has been considered of such importance, and, more 
importantly, how its current impact on the field rises to the level major significance required by this 
criterion. While the letters indicate that thel I method has been cited and used by others in the 
4 
field, they also emphasize its potential future impact, making it unclear to what extent it has already 
influenced or impacted the field. The letters generally indicate that the research is considered 
important, added value to the pool of knowledge in his field and opened avenues for farther 
researching intol I methods. The evidence, however, is insufficient to confirm that 
the level of attention the Petitioner has received reflects widespread commentary and acceptance of 
his work, or that the field of machine learning or its subfields have regarded his research as 
authoritative or otherwise deem it to be of major significance. Here, the Petitioner's letters do not 
contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual influence or high impact his research or 
work has already had on the overall field. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's 
contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 6 On 
the other hand, letters that lack specifics do not add value, and are not considered to be probative 
evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 7 
In addition to the expert opinion letters, the Petitioner also provides his publication and citation record 
from Google Scholar, which includes his journal articles and conference presentations. 8 We note that 
several of the submitted letters highlight that the Petitioner presented his paper describing the above-
reference~ I method, titled ,j O I' at the I I I ,I in 2016, and emphasize that I lis a "premier international conference" 
in this subfield. The record also indicates that the Petitioner's paper was selected as one of eleven 
"BTt Papr' finalists at this conference, but it does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's invitation to 
the or the finalist recognition he received for his paper are indicators that the research has been 
recognized as an original contribution of major significance in his field. 
As noted, publications and presentations typically present "original" work but are not sufficient under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." Generally, citations 
serve as an indication that the field has taken an interest in a Petitioner's work. We acknowledge, 
however, that a petitioner may present evidence that his articles "have provoked widespread 
commentary or received notice from others working in the field, or entries (particularly a goodly 
number) in a citation index which cite [his] work as authoritative in the field, may be probative of the 
significance of [his] contributions to the field of endeavor." 9 
According to Google Scholar, the Petitioner's co-authored conference paper on thel lmethod 
had been cited 12 times at the time of filing, while his most cited article had 40 citations. Although 
he provided information regarding the number of times each of his articles has been cited, he did not 
provide additional supporting evidence to establish the significance of these numbers or to demonstrate 
that any of his publications are highly cited or widely discussed when compared to articles published by 
others. For example, an appropriate analysis, would be to compare the Petitioner's citations to those of 
other similarly, highly cited articles that the field views as having been of major significance, as well as 
factoring in other corroborating evidence. Absent such evidence, the Petitioner's citations reflect that 
his research has received some attention from the field, but he did not demonstrate that the citation 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8-9. 
7 Id. at 9. 
8 The Petitioner submits an updated Google Scholar citation history on appeal indicating that the cumulative number of 
citations mentioned in the Director's decision was incorrect. The record reflects that the Director accurately stated the 
number of cumulative citations documented in the Petitioner's Google Scholar citation history submitted at the time of 
filing. 
9 Id. at 8-9. 
5 
numbers for his individual articles represent majorly significant contributions to the overall field. For 
example, we cannot determine whether a record of 12 citations supports the testimonial evidence 
indicating that the Petitioner's novel method was received by the field as "revolutionary" or as a "major 
breakthrough." 
Regardless, even highly cited publications alone are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
absent evidence that they were of "major significance" as a citation number or ranking does not 
provide sufficient context to determine the impact or importance of a given researcher's work in the 
field. That context must be provided by other evidence in the record. Here, while the Petitioner 
submitted corroborating evidence in the form of expert opinion letters, that evidence, for the reasons 
already discussed, is not sufficient to establish that any of the Petitioner's past research findings, as of 
the date of filing, have remarkably impacted or influenced his field. 
Considered together, the evidence consisting of the Petitioner's journal publications and conference 
papers, his citation history, and the reference letters from his colleagues and other experts, establishes 
that the Petitioner has been very productive, and that his published data and findings have been relied 
upon by others in their own research. It does not demonstrate, however, that the Petitioner has made 
an original contribution of major significance in his field. Therefore, he has not met 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 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 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. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his 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 section203(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 he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6