sustained EB-1A Case: Artificial Intelligence Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12091215 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 30, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the field of artificial intelligence technology, 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 meets at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria for the requested 
classification. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will sustain 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 
international 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 criteria 
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 he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the individual'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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an entrepreneur in the field of artificial intelligence technology who currently serves 
as the founder, inventor, and CEO of I I 
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 have met at least five criteria, summarized 
below: 
I (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards of prizes; 
I (iii), Published materials in major media; 
I (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
I (viii), Leading or critical roles with organizations that have a distinguished reputation; and 
I (ix), High salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field. 
In addition, the Petitioner requested the consideration of comparable evidence regarding his speaking 
engagements and financial success under the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) and (x), which 
relate, respectively, to display of work at artistic exhibitions and showcases, and to commercial success 
in the performing arts. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met two criteria relating to published materials and leading 
or critical roles. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director ignored probative evidence 
establishing that he meets the criteria related to original contributions, nationally recognized awards, 
and high salary or other significantly high remuneration. After reviewing all the evidence in the record, 
we conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied an additional criterion. 
2 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) calls for evidence of an individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, 
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. The evidence 
demonstrates that, as co-founder ofl I, the Petitioner was listed as the inventor on at least 
three issued patents related to the company's proprietary.__ ____________ ___. 
technology, thus establishing thl original
1
ity of his contributions. The Petitioner also provided 
evidence of awards received by for its application of theO technology, and several 
testimonial letters that discussed this proprietary technology, its commercialization, and its subsequent 
impact on the use of artificial intelligence and big data in thel I industry. 
I I a senior scientist and manager at NASA's 
I I notes that the Petitioner'sOtechnolo~g-y-·-·w_a_s_t-he_v_e_ry-fi-rs-t-to-al-lo_w__, 
I ~ompanies and markets to provide better user experiences as well as understand! I 
I ~ I I lead marketing for robotics atl O lnotes that the 
Petitioner's technology "pushed I I above its competitors to the point tha~ I replaced 
I !technology as the market standard for the U.K.I t indust "and notes that his 
patents have been quoted by "other patents that belon to com anies like 
I I Head of h Italian Trade Agenr---·::~~:~~;~~:~~~~~~:~~~~_=--em-ph_a_s-iz-es_t_h__.at 
the Petitioner "realize could also hel the nderstand what content is being watched 
'-----;::::::====:::::z---0----------.,---------------------' and "revolutionized 
th~ I industry by making data acquisition more efficient than traditional I I .-I ---'---.-I m-et-h-od-s.__," 
I I vice President of Engineering tori I which acquired I I in 2018, 
explains that the Petitioner's technology "was especially groundbreaking because it assessed! 
I I exposure and consumption immediately, through.__ ___________ ___. He 
~states that the technology "revolutionized the field because the technology was not tied to a single 
L__Jnanufacturer or .___ _____ __,corporation" and notes that the technology is currently 
deployed in the United States, United Kingdom and other European markets. Finally, he explains that 
the Petitioner's "patented I I tech h h n h I I 
field by providing critical insight into the value of on dilital media platforms." 
Although the Petitioner ultimately made the decision to sell.___ ___ __, to_ I the record 
also reflects that major industry players, including Apple and Amazon, had expressed interest in the 
acquisition of the technology. 
Based on th~nial evidence, patents, and other independent evidence regarding the industry's 
reception ofL___Js technology, the Petitioner has established the major significance of his original 
contributions and satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Because the Petitioner has 
demonstrated that he satisfies three criteria, we will evaluate the totality of the evidence, including 
evidence relating to the remaining claimed criteria, in the context of the final merits determination below. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the requ1s1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim and 
that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements 
3 
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 their 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. 
See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-20.1 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has shown his eligibility. 
The Petitioner's curriculum vitae reflects that since I I 2019, he has served as the founder, 
inventor, and CEO ofl I which has developed aj I platform able to accurately 
predict quarterly revenues of public companies usingl I From 2012 to 
2018, he served asl I co-founder, CEO, inventor, and major shareholder where he was 
responsible for building investor relations, product invention, and patent creation, and led the company 
from its initial startup through its acquisition byl ltor more than ten million dollars. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established both his leading role withl I and 
the company's distinguished reputation in the industry. For example, the record demonstrates that 
both I land the Petitioner, as its founder, received industry awards and recognition for the 
company's proprietary technology at thee=]Siemer Summit and South by Southwest I I 
industry conferences. The record reflects that both annual events receive coverage in national media 
outlets including Forbes and Yahoo Finance, garnering acclaim for the Petitioner.I I and the 
innovative technology he developed. 
The record also reflects that the Petitioner and received mainstream media coverage in 
response to the companY,'s industr ra id growth, hi~h-profile partnerships 
with entities such as th_~----------.------.-- and[ I and its acquisition by 
I I For example, MarketWatch reported on s discovery tha~~--~lviewers were 
spending significantly more time watching,___ ____ ~than previously understood andl I 
presented these analytics at the National Association of Broadcasters show inl I The record 
establishes that this discovery also prompted a White House senior technology and economic policy 
advisor to contact the Petitioner for guidance on determining the market share of I I services 
,.__ __________ ~ in order to analyze the risk of a monopoly. 
I~ I ~as recognized by Inc. magazine as one of the fastest growing privately held 
companies in the United States in its Inc. 5000 list, from a field that includes millions of companies. 
The Petitioner also enjoyed acclaim from Italian magazine ReRubblica which published an article titled 
and included I I on its innovative! I _,__---,------,-------,----,--------,--....,.....,.---="""""' 
"companies that are changing the world." The Petitioner was also interviewed by Italian magazine 
Millionaire about I I tech~ts market opportunities, its most lucrative deals, and his 
opportunity to sell the company tol___J, after! platform had been used by I lin its 
I I products. 
1 See also 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 ADll-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the 
evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
4 
Although the Petitioner ultimately made the decision to sell I Ito I lin 2018, the 
record reflects that another ma·or indust la er, A le Inc., had expressed interest in the acquisition 
of the technology. Apple's discusses the impact ofl I 
platform and Apple's interest in that technology. In his letter.__ ___ __.states that he considers the 
Petitioner to be "part of a small group of entrepreneurs that have risen to the top of his field in 
I !analytics" based on both his achievements withl I and on innovative new 
technology he has developed for I I which has "attracted very significant level of 
interest from the senior management of several! I institutions." 
Other letters from experts speak to the Petitioner's reputation and acclaim in his field and are 
corroborated by the independent evidence related to his awards, media coverage, and the impact and 
commercial success of his atented technolo ies.l hates that the Petitioner was invited 
to serve as a mentor at~------------r--------.-~ University based on his reputation 
and acclaim in the field. He highlights "the story of~_~the company he founded and led for 
seven years and eventually sold," as "an exemplary success story that embodies the I I 
entrepreneurial myth narrative." I !further emphasizes that the Petitioner's "unique 
invention ... attracted important names in the field" and states t
1
at "[t]o t
1
is day, he is the leading 
figure on I ~ata consumption." I bf attests to the Petitioner's 
"reputation as a thought leader in the artificial intelligence entrepreneurial technology space," 
highlighting his mentorship of other entrepreneurs through organizations likel I University. 
~ references the Petitioner's speaking engagements including keynote addresses atl I 
L___J and~ing that such engagements speak to his "reputation as a leading entrepreneur" 
in his field. c===]describes the Petitioner as "one of the most successful examples otl I 
entrepreneurship in the technology space." 
Here, the record reflects that the Petitioner has received recognition from experts and top companies 
in his industry, through industry awards and media, and through prestigious speaking and mentoring 
opportunities in his field. Based on the evidence discussed above and our review of the record in the 
aggregate, we conclude that the Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence, 
sustained national acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field of 
endeavor. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)-(3). 
111. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has established that he meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). He has also demonstrated sustained acclaim and that his achievements have been 
recognized through extensive documentation. Lastly, the Petitioner has shown that he intends to 
continue working in his area of expertise and that he will substantially benefit prospectively the United 
States. He therefore qualifies for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
5