dismissed EB-1B Case: Artificial Intelligence

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 17305280 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : OCT . 4, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Outstanding Professors /Researchers) 
The Petitioner , a.__ ________ _, financial information services company , seeks to classify 
the Beneficiary as an outstanding professor or researcher in the field of artificial intelligence . See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(B) . 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary is internationally recognized as outstanding in his academic 
field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that the Director overlooked or did not properly 
evaluate evidence in the record, and that this evidence establishes that the Beneficiary qualifies under 
the high standards of this immigrant visa classification . 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act , 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The statute requires that beneficiaries under this immigrant visa classification should stand apart in 
their academic area based on international recognition. To establish a professor or researcher's 
eligibility , a petitioner must provide initial qualifying documentation that meets at least two of six 
categories of specific objective evidence and demonstrates the beneficiary is recognized 
internationally within the academic field as outstanding. 
Specifically , section 203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the Act provides that a foreign national is an outstanding 
professor or researcher if: 
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in the academic area , and 
(iii) the alien seeks to enter the United States [for a qualifying position with a university, 
institution of higher education, or certain private employers]. 
To establish a professor or researcher's eligibility, a petitioner must provide initial qualifying 
documentation that meets at least two of six categories of specific objective evidence set forth at 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A)-(F). This, however, is only the first step, and the successful submission of 
evidence meeting at least two criteria does not, in and of itself: establish eligibility for this 
classification. When a petitioner submits sufficient evidence at the first step, we will then conduct a 
final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that the beneficiary is 
internationally recognized as outstanding in his or her academic field. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(ii) provides that a petition for an outstanding professor 
or researcher must be accompanied evidence that the foreign national has at least three years of 
experience in teaching and/or research in the academic field. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary received his Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University ofl I in June 
2018. During his graduate studies, the Beneficiary worked as an intern for both._l _____ ___.I and 
I I in 2017. He has been employed as a Senior Research Scientist with the 
Petitioner's I I group since July 2018. 
In his decision, the Director found that the Beneficiary met three of the evidentiary criteria, thus 
satisfying the initial evidence requirement, but that the totality of the record did not establish the 
requisite international recognition in his field. Upon review, we agree with the Director that the 
evidence demonstrates the Beneficiary's service as a judge of the work of others, original scientific or 
scholarly research contributions to the academic field, and authorship of scholarly articles. As he 
therefore meets the initial evidence requirements, we will consider all the evidence of record when 
conducting the final merits determination. 
In a final merits determination, we analyze a researcher's accomplishments and weigh the totality of 
the evidence to evaluate whether a petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence 2, 
that the beneficiary's achievements are sufficient to demonstrate that he has been internationally 
recognized as outstanding in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i). In this matter, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not shown the 
Beneficiary's eligibility. 3 
1 USCTS has confirmed the applicability of this two-step analysis to evaluate the evidence submitted with the petition to 
demonstrate eligibility for classification as an outstanding professor or researcher. See 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.3(B), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 A petitioner must establish that the beneficiary meets the eligibility requirements of the benefit sought by a preponderance 
of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 251& N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). In other words, a petitioner must show that 
what it claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met its burden under 
the preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
3 In the final merits analysis, the Director's decision discussed the documentation relating to the Beneficiary's peer review 
activity, research contributions, published and presented work, citation evidence, patent, and high salary, and explained 
2 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that "the Beneficiary's Google Scholar profile properly evidences his 
eligibility as an outstanding professor or researcher." The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's 
citation information from Google Scholar offers "direct, objective evidence of other researchers who 
have been using and building upon [the Beneficiary's] scholarly contributions." It further contends 
that the record includes letters of support from experts in the field attesting "to the ground-breaking 
nature of [the Beneficiary's] research" and confirming "the far-reaching nature of [the Beneficiary's] 
work that has helped to influence the field." Additionally, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's 
peer review work and high remuneration demonstrate his "status as an internationally recognized 
outstanding researcher in the field." 
It is important to note that the controlling purpose of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) is to 
establish a beneficiary's international recognition, and any evidence submitted to meet these criteria 
must therefore be to some extent indicative of international recognition. More specifically, 
outstanding professors and researchers should stand apart in the academic community through 
eminence and distinction based on international recognition. Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. 
Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 1991) (enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). Therefore, 
to the extent that the Director first determined that the evidence satisfied the plain language 
requirements of specific evidentiary criteria, and then evaluated whether that evidence, as part of the 
entirety of the record, was sufficient to demonstrate the Beneficiary's recognition as outstanding at the 
international level, his analysis was in keeping with the statute, regulations, and policy pertaining to 
the requested immigrant visa classification. 
As it pertains to the Beneficiary's participation as a judge of the work of others, the Petitioner 
submitted evidence indicatin that he reviewed one a er each for the 2018 National Conference of 
th~---------------~----- and the 2016 Association for Computing 
Machinery (ACM) International Conference on Information Knowledge Management (CIKM). 4 The 
Petitioner also provided documentation showing that the Beneficiary served as a program committee 
member for the 2019 ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM). This 
documentation included a June 2018 email stating that the Beneficiary's duties as a program 
committee member involved "bidding on papers close to your areas of interest, writing detailed and 
constructive reviews, and actively participating in the discussions when required. You will be 
assigned no more than 10 papers to review and you will be expected to read each paper and conduct 
each review personally without delegation." In addition, the Petitioner presented a February 2019 
follow-up email from the WSDM 2019 Program Committee Co-chairs thanking the Beneficiary for 
his service. 5 
why that evidence, as part of the entirety of the record, was insufficient to demonstrate the Beneficiary's recognition as 
outstanding at the international level. 
4 This evidence is not limited to "invitations" from the conferences' organizers for the Beneficiary to review others' papers. 
Instead, the record contains documentation showing that he actually completed the reviews. 
5 This email also informed the Beneficiary that he was recognized as an Outstanding Program Committee member based 
on "[a] metric-based ranking ... that combined scores for Timeliness of reviewing, Contribution to discussion. and 
Comprehensiveness ofreviews." While the Beneficiary's Outstanding Program Committee member honor shows that he 
provided valuable peer review service for the 2019 ACM WSDM conference, the Petitioner has not established that this 
honor is recognized beyond the context of the conference program committee in which the Beneficiary participated, or 
otherwise signifies his international recognition in the academic field. Nor is there information regarding how many other 
program committee members were similarly recognized at this conference. 
3 
The Petitioner also submitted emails inviting the Beneficiary to review papers submitted to A CM 
~-----------~~---~1(2018), the 2019 ACM Conference on Computer 
Supported Cooperative Work ( CSCW), the 2017 ACM Conference on Interactiln DesiJn and Children 
(IDC), the 2017 and 2019 ACM I • IConference(s) Data Mining 
Knowledge and Discovery (2017), and the 2017 ACM International Conference on Interactive 
Experiences for Television and Online Radio (IETOR). The record, however, does not include 
evidence showing that the Beneficiary accepted these invitations and completed manuscript reviews 
for the aforementioned journals and conferences. Invitations to serve as a peer reviewer or program 
committee member do not constitute evidence of one's participation as the judge of others' work. 6 Here, 
the Petitoner has not provided evidence from the editorial staff of A CM 
I I and Data Mining Knowledge and Discovery, or from.__th_e_o-rg_a_n-iz_e_r_s_o_f_t_h_e_2_0_1__.9 
ACM CSCW conference, the 2017 ACM IDC conference, the 2017 and 2019 ACM RSC conferences, 
and the 2017 ACM IETOR conference, indicating that the Beneficiary has actually performed peer 
review services in response to their email invitations. 
An evaluation of the significance of the Beneficiary's judging experience is appropriate to determine 
if such evidence is indicative of the outstanding achievement required for this classification. 7 In many 
scientific and academic fields, peer review is a routine part of the process through which articles are 
selected for publication or presentation at conferences. Participation in the peer review process does 
not automatically demonstrate that an individual is internationally recognized as outstanding in his 
academic field. Here, the Petitioner has not established that the level and frequency of the Bene±~ 
participation as a reviewer of manuscripts ( one paper each for the 2018 National Conference ofl____J 
and the 2016 ACM CIKM conference, and once as a program committee member for 2019 ACM 
WSDM conference) are indicative of or consistent with being recognized internationally as outstanding 
in his academic area. 
The Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary "has participated as a peer reviewer and Program Committee 
member" for "some of the most prestigious international conferences and journals in the field." 8 The 
record contains rankings from Google Scholar and the Computing Research and Education (CORE) 
Conference Portal for conference proceedings for which the Beneficiary was invited to review 
manuscripts. For instance, the Petitioner provided information from Google Scholar ranking the 
I I Conference on~------~ as 7th in its subject matter sub-category I I I I in terms of its "h5-index," a measure related to the journal and conferences' respective 
impact factors. However, the record does not contain evidence demonstrating, for example, that the 
specific conferences and journals that invited the Beneficiary to serve as a peer reviewer or program 
committee member reserve those invitations for researchers who are recognized internationally as 
outstanding in the academic field. 
6 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D) specifically requires "[e]vidence of the alien's participation, either 
individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work ofothers" ( emphasis added). 
7 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.3(B)(l) (stating that a beneficiary's participation as a judge should be evaluated 
to detennine whether it was indicative of the beneficiary being recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area). 
8 As previously explained, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary has completed peer review work for A CM 
I I, Data Mining Knowledge and Discovery, or any other journal in his field. 
4 
At issue here is the extent to which the Beneficiary's peer review activities have required, reflected, 
or resulted in his being recognized internationally as outstanding in his field. As noted, the Petitioner 
did not establish the journal and conferences' specific requirements for selection of peer reviewers 
and program committee members, and therefore we are unable to evaluate the Beneficiary's peer 
review activities in light of those requirements. For instance, reviewing manuscripts for conferences 
that select program committee members based on subject matter expertise would not provide strong 
support for the petition, because possessing expertise in a given field is a considerably lower threshold 
than being recognized internationally within the academic field as outstanding. 
Therefore, although the record shows that the Beneficiary has reviewed papers for the 2018 National 
Conference ofl l the 2016 ACM CIKM conference, and the 2019 ACM WSDM conference, this 
evidence does not demonstrate how his peer review activity compares to or differentiates him from 
his peers in the field. Similarly, the evidence in the record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
has received any international recognition for his service as a peer reviewer. Without this or other 
evidence differentiating him from others in his field, 9 the Petitioner has not established how the 
Beneficiary's peer review experience contributes to establishing that he is internationally recognized 
as outstanding in his academic field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
With respect to the Beneficiary's research contributions, the record includes letters of support 
discussin his raduate research ro·ects at the University ofl land his internship work for 
both and example, regarding the Beneficiary's research 
involving~--------~.__ _____ ....., a lead data scientist witH ~ I in the 
Netherlands, summarized three of the Beneficiary's papers that were presented at the ACM 
"-;:::::=====:::::;------' Conference. 101 I indicated that the Beneficia "conducted controlled 
studies to collect and model the data about while browsing the ~-----~ dynamically changing m a...,..,... ________ , collected and modelled "data 
about why .__ _______ __, in real usage s;...:c....:e_n....:ac...n....:· o....:s__;_o_n___;_;.a--1-------------' 
pla · dated "a comprehensive based model for modeling 
the processes have users while browsing online page 
' While .......... __ ~ asserted that the Beneficiary's! I work "makes great 
~s...,..tr_1...,.e_s_t~owards solving those user experience problems that still frequently happen in the state-of-the­
art! I" he did not offer specific examples of how the Beneficiary's findings have 
been widely utilized in the online industry or have otherwise influenced the Beneficiary's field at a 
level commensurate with being internationally recognized as outstanding. 
With regard to the Beneficia 's research relating to~-------~ I a 
postdoctoral researcher at University in Finland, 11 stated the Beneficiary "rigorously 
studied two ways of .......... ~--~----_. .. to address the two issues, i.e.J I 
~-----~ The overall problem to address and the proposed approaches are significant and 
9 For example, the record does not include documentation that sets the Beneficiary apart from others in the field, such as 
evidence that he has completed reviews for a substantial number of distinguished journals or conferences relative to others 
in his field, served in editorial positions for highly regarded journals or publications, or chaired prominent evaluation 
comm1 for reputable conferences. 
10,..._ __ .......,.oted that he met the Beneficiary at the 201 :a:,.8 ~A~C=.....,,-----~---' Conference id~---~ 
11 was a visitin scholar at the Universi of in 2017 and coauthored a paper with the Beneficiary, 
(2018). 
~-------------------------~ 
5 
interesting broadly to the user-centric research community of.__ _____ ~ __ _. ~-----' 
further indicated that the Beneficiary "developed algorithms to optimize for a user's coming back into 
the system with the input of I t I I also expressed his belief that 
the Beneficiary's "work can have a s1gmhcant impact on the research field ofi I 
in the long run," but he did not sufficiently detail in what ways the Beneficiary's findings have already 
advanced the state of research in the academic field or explain how his work has already influenced 
the wider field beyond the teams ofresearchers who have directly cited to his articles. 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 research finding that broadens 
knowledge in a particular field renders an individual's work as outstanding or internationally 
recognized in his academic area. 
In addition, I I a researcher at the I =:J 
indicated that he met the Beneficiary "when weL.._w_e_r_e_j_n_te-~-1·o_g_a...,.tl--------------,l, 12 
Regarding the Beneficiary's work for! J _ I stated that the Beneficiary 
"designed, developed and studied a prototype system: 
~-------------------------__." While~---~ asserted 
that the idea of this "system was novel and impactful, potentially improving the productivity of a huge 
number of users cord does not show that the 
Beneficiary's.__ __ _.prototype has been widely utilized b .__ __ __, has had a meaningful impact 
in the academic field, has been extensively cited by independent researchers, or has otherwise risen to 
the level of a contribution that is recognized internationally as outstanding. 
The record includes evidence that the Beneficiary has been listed as a co-inventor on a "United States 
Patent Application Publication" (2019) filed byl I entitled .__ ________ __. 
I t14 While a published patent application may eventually result in a patent, it does not 
constitute a granted patent. Furthermore, a patent recognizes the originality of the idea, but it does not 
by itself demonstrate that the inventor has made a research contribution to the academic field that 
signifies international recognition or outstanding achievement. Rather, the significance of the 
innovation must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Here, the Petitioner has not submitted 
evidence showing that this invention has had an impact that is internationally recognized as 
outstanding in the Beneficiary's field. Nor has the Petitioner established the level or scope of 
individual recognition the Beneficiary has received as a result of this innovation, and the evidence 
does not support a determination that participating in the development of this invention is sufficient to 
set the Beneficiary apart as outstanding from others in the field. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's~in_t_e_rn_s_h_i.._p_a_t_l ___ ._I _in_v_o_l_v_in.....,R improving the performance of 
'------------~ I J a research engineer at I ~ 
15 
~12_T_h_;;e_P_e;;..;.tI_;.·ti....c.o_ne.;;_r_,p"-r-'-ov-'--i-"-d-'-edc....,l ___ ___.f s curriculum vitae which indicates that he is a Ph.D. student a~~---~ 
I 
13 According to October 2019 infonnation the Petitioner submitted from Google Scholar, the Beneficiary's a1iicle rep01iing 
this work, entitled ~----------------~ had received only three citations since its 
publication in 2018. 
14 This U.S. Patent A lication Publication listed seven other co-inventors. 
15 ~---~--.--n=o'-=jted that she met the Beneficiary during her Ph.D. studies at the University o~~-----'I and that 
their internships at n 2017 overlapped. 
~-~ 
6 
indicated that the Beneficiary "proposed the approach of utilizing! I in the output of 
I I models either through I g otj I techniques. 
The algorithm that [the Beneficiary] proposed achieved 21.8% 1m rovement in a critical 
.__ _________ __, metric in a large-scale industrial data set." 16 further 
explained that this "algorithm efficiently utilizes th..,__ ___________ __, readily available 
in most application domains to overcome the data sparsity problem," but she did not provide specific 
examples indicating that the Beneficiary's work has affected the field of1 I in a 
substantial way that signifies international recognition or outstanding achievement in the academic field. 
The Petitioner argues that the Director "failed to properly consider" the four aforementioned letters of 
support from "experts in the field." The expert testimonials offered by the Petitioner, however, do not 
contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating 
evidence, to show that the Beneficiary's work is viewed by the overall academic field, rather than by 
a solicited few, as substantially influential or otherwise indicative of international recognition. 
The Petitioner also contends that the Beneficiary's "scholarly articles have been published in some of 
the most distinguished international conferences and journals in his field." 17 The record contains 
information from the CORE Conference Portal for three of the conference proceedings in which the 
Beneficiary has published his work, including ACM International Conference on Research and 
Development and Information Retrieval, International World Wide Web Conference, and ACM 
Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. For instance, the CORE Conference Portal 
assigns the ACM International Conference on Research and Development and Information Retrieval 
a ranking of "A*." 
CORE Conference Portal rankings are determined by multiple "indicators, including citation rates, 
paper submission and acceptance rates, and the visibility and research track record of the key people 
hosting the conference and managing its technical program." 18 A high CORE ranking does not, 
however, show the influence of any particular author or demonstrate how an individual's research has 
had an impact within the field. Further, the evidence in the record does not establish that publication 
in a conference proceeding with a high ranking alone is sufficient to demonstrate that a beneficiary is 
recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field. As authoring scholarly articles is often 
inherent to the work of professors and researchers, the citation history or other evidence of the 
influence of the Beneficiary's articles can be an indicator to determine the impact and recognition that 
his work has had on the field and whether his articles demonstrate that he is internationally recognized 
as outstanding in the academic field. 19 
16 According to October 2019 citation information the Petitioner submitted from Goo le Scholar, the Beneficiary's article 
reporting this work. entitled~-----------------------~' had received only 
four citations since its publication in 2018. 
17 While the record includes documentation showing that the Beneficiary's work has been published in multiple conference 
proceedings, the Petitioner has not identified the "journals" that have published his work. Nor has the Petitioner provided 
evidence to suppmi its claim that the Beneficiary's articles have been published in "journals in his field." 
18 See "CORE Rankings Portal" at https://www.core.edu.au/conference-portal (visited September 22, 2021, copy attached 
to this notice and incorporated into the record of proceedings). 
19 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.3(B)(l) (stating that a beneficiary's authorship of books or articles should be 
evaluated to determine whether they were indicative of the beneficiary being recognized internationally as outstanding in 
a specific academic area). 
7 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's October 2019 Google Scholar profile 
h th th. h . 1 h d . d 85 1 f Th. . f fi G 1 s owmg a 1s researc art1c es a receive cumu a ive c1tat10ns. 1s m ormat10n rom oog e 
Scholar further indicated that the Beneficiary's four highest cited articles, entitled I I 
I (2016), 1 
I' (2017), I 
I (2017), and 1 
r (2018) each received 18, 13, 13, and 12 citations, 
respectively. 20 The Petitioner did not specify how many citations for each of these individual articles 
were self-citations by the Beneficiary or his coauthors. 
In response to the Director's notice of intent to deny (NOID) and on appeal, the Petitioner provided 
the Beneficiary's May 2020 Google Scholar profile reflecting a nominal increase of citations to the 
Beneficiary's individual articles, but the Petitioner did not indicate how many of these additional 
citations occurred in papers published prior to or at the time of initial filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1), 
(12). The Petitioner's NOID response and appellate submission also included Google Scholar lists of 
citing articles for four of the Beneficiary's papers.21 These lists of citing articles show that others in 
the United States and abroad were able to build upon the Beneficiary's research and apply it to their 
work, but they are not sufficient to demonstrate that his research findings have garnered a level of 
attention commensurate with being recognized internationally in field of artificial intelligence. 
Without comparative statistical evidence indicating how often others in the Beneficiary's field are 
cited, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his research articles 
represents interest at a level consistent with being internationally recognized as outstanding in the 
academic field. 
While the Beneficiary's citations, both individually and collectively, show that the field has taken 
some notice of his work, the Petitioner has not established that the number of citations received by his 
published and presented work is sufficient to demonstrate a level of attention commensurate with 
being recognized internationally in his field. See section 203(b)(l)(B)(i) of the Act. Nor has the 
Petitioner shown that the number of citations to the Beneficiary's work represents interest at a level 
consistent with outstanding achievement in the academic field. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided a November 2019 employment letter and the Beneficiary's pay 
statements (dated October and November 2019) indicating that he receives an annual salary of 
$221,000. The Petitioner also offered salary information from the Occupational Outlook Handbook 
stating that "[t]he median annual wage for computer and information research scientists was $118,370 
in May 2018" and that "the highest 10 percent earned more than $183,820." 22 The Director 
acknowledged that "the Beneficiary is paid a high salary," but concluded that this evidence did not 
show that he "is internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher in the academic field outside 
of his institution." 
20 The Beneficiary's remaining aiticles were each cited eight times or less. The majority of his aiticles were coauthored 
with his Ph.D. advisor at the University of! II I 
21 These lists included self-citations by the Beneficiary and his coauthors. 
22 Fuithermore, the Petitioner submitted prevailing wage data from the Foreign Labor Certification Data Center showing 
earnings levels for "computer and information research scientists" in I , , I area. This 
information indicates that the Beneficiary's salary is well above the "Level 4 Wage" and "Mean Wage" for the 
aforementioned occupational category. 
8 
In the appeal brief: the Petitioner argues that "USCIS is required to review all relevant evidence. More 
specifically, USCIS must essentially accept the evidence of extraordinary ability under the ten criteria 
set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Of the ten criteria evidence of high remuneration is listed as 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x)." The Petitioner, however, is not seeking to classify the Beneficiary as an 
individual of "extraordinary ability." See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). 
Here, the Petitioner is seeking classification for the Beneficiary as an outstanding professor or 
researcher pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(B). These two 
classifications are adjudicated based on different standards as set forth in the statute and regulations. 
While the Petitioner has presented documentation showing that the Beneficiary commands a high 
salary relative to "computer and information research scientists," this evidence does demonstrate that 
he is internationally recognized as outstanding in the field o~ I For instance, the 
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's salary is recognized beyond his employer or that 
he has received attention based on his earnings separating himself from others in the field. Nor has 
the Petitioner shown that the Beneficiary's salary otherwise signifies eminence and distinction based 
on international recognition in the artificial intelligence field. 
Although the evidence indicates that the Beneficiary is a skilled~----~-~ researcher, the 
Petitioner has not established that he stands apart in the academic community through eminence and 
distinction based on international recognition. After consideration of the totality of the evidence of 
the Beneficiary's work in the areas of~--------------~ including his U.S. 
patent application publication, research articles, citations to those articles by others in the field, his 
participation as a peer reviewer, his high salary, and the opinions of experts in the field, we conclude 
that this documentation does not sufficiently establish that he has been internationally recognized as 
an outstanding researcher in the field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence in the record demonstrates that the Beneficiary meets at least two of the evidentiary 
criteria, and thus the initial evidence requirements for this classification. A review of the totality of 
the evidence, however, does not establish that he is internationally recognized as an outstanding 
professor or researcher in the academic field. 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. 
9