dismissed EB-1B Case: Iot And Artificial Intelligence

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 11, 2024 In Re: 29024063 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Outstanding Professors/Researchers) 
The Petitioner, a water management and geographic information system (GIS) software company, 
seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an outstanding professor or researcher. 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 Petitioner did not establish, as required, that 
the Beneficiary is internationally recognized as outstanding in his academic field. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(B) of the Act provides that an individual is an outstanding professor or researcher 
if: 
(i) the individual is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic 
area, 
(ii) the individual has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in the 
academic area, and 
(iii) the individual 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 their academic field. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). See also 
Viswanadha v. Mayorkas, 660 F. Supp. 3d 759, 770-72 (N.D. Ind. 2023) (concluding that USCIS' 
two-step analysis is consistent with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)); 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). 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary is an Internet of Things (IoT) and artificial intelligence 
researcher. At the time of filing, the Petitioner presented a letter from a graduate advisor atl I 
indicating that the Beneficiary "completed all the courses and thesis credits 
._r_e_q_u-ir_e_d_o_f_h_i_s_M-.S-_-P_l.....an A thesis degree in Computer Engineering at 0. He is awaiting to get the 
changes reviewed in his thesis which was required by the department but all courses and research 
credits are complete." 3 After attending~ the Beneficiary began working for the Petitioner as a 
Senior IoT Engineer and Lead Researcher in Artificial Intelligence. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
In his decision, the Director found that the Beneficiary met at least two of the evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A)-(F), thus satisfying the initial evidence requirement, but that the totality of 
the record did not establish the requisite international recognition in his field. 4 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. 
B. 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, 5 
1 "Academic field means a body of specialized knowledge offered for study at an accredited United States university or 
institution of higher education." 8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(2). By regulatory definition, a body of specialized knowledge is larger 
than a very small area of specialization in which only a single course is taught or that is the subject of a ve1y specialized 
dissertation. For example, it would be acceptable to conclude that a beneficiary is an outstanding professor or researcher 
in particle physics rather than physics in general, as long as it has been demonstrated that the claimed field is "a body of 
specialized knowledge offered for study at an accredited United States university or institution of higher education." See 
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.3(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 USCIS has confirmed the applicability of this two-step analysis to evaluate the evidence submitted with the petition to 
demonstrate an individual's eligibility for classification as an outstanding professor or researcher in their academic field. 
See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.3(B). 
3 The Petitioner provided a copy of the Beneficiary's academic transcript fromO but it does not show the date of his 
graduation. Nor does the record include evidence indicating that the Beneficiary has received his Master of Science degree 
fromLJ 
4 The Director detennined that the Beneficiary satisfied the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D), (E), and (F). 
5 A petitioner must establish that the beneficiary meets the eligibility requirements of the benefit sought by a preponderance 
2 
that the beneficiary's achievements are sufficient to demonstrate that he has been internationally 
recognized as outstanding in the academic field. See section 203(b)(l)(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. 6 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that the Director erred in following USCIS policy 
guidance relating to the two-step analysis for evaluating the evidence submitted to demonstrate 
eligibility for classification as an outstanding professor or researcher. The Petitioner contends that 
"[t]he dichotomous approach requiring officers to essentially evaluate a case twice, allows 
adjudicators to deny petitions even after the appellant has met the requisite criteria, in effect overriding 
the statutory standards set by the [Act]." We disagree that simply meeting two of the categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) is itself sufficient to demonstrate eligibility for this classification. 
Such an interpretation is in conflict with both the text of the regulation (which sets forth criteria that 
must be met to show "initial evidence") and the text of the statute (which requires that the beneficiary 
be "recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic area"). See Viswanadha v. 
Mayorkas, 660 F. Supp. 3d at 772. Accordingly, we conclude that USCIS' two-step analysis does not 
contradict the statute or regulation. 
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. Therefore, to the extent that 
the Director first determined that the evidence satisfied the plain language requirements of three 
specific evidentiary criteria (relating to judging, research contributions, and authorship of scholarly 
articles), 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 for 
those three criteria was in keeping with the statute, regulations, and USCIS policy pertaining to the 
requested immigrant visa classification. 
The Petitioner farther argues 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. It contends that the Director did not properly analyze the Beneficiary's 
research contributions, including his development of an IoT remote water pressure monitoring system, 
artificial intelligence predictive analysis, and interactive hydraulic modeling system. In addition, the 
Petitioner points to an award it received for "export achievements," and letters of support from 
overseas organizations and the Beneficiary's colleagues discussing his work. 
The Petitioner's appellate submission includes a June 2023 press release from the U.S. Department of 
Commerce's Office of Public Affairs indicating that the Petitioner was among "24 U.S. companies 
of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I& N Dec. at 375-76. In other words, a petitioner must show that what it claims 
is "more likely than not" or "probably" trne. To dete1mine 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). 
6 In the final merits analysis, the Director's decision discussed the documentation relating to the Beneficiary's judging the 
work of others, research contributions, published work, and citation evidence, and explained 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. 
3 
and organizations" that received "2023 Presidential Awards for Export Achievements." 7 The 
Petitioner received this award after filing the petition. 8 Eligibility must be demonstrated at the time 
of filing the benefit request. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). Regardless, this award for increasing 
export sales was presented to the Petitioner and not the Beneficiary. Further, the Petitioner has not 
shown that the award was "for outstanding achievement in the academic field." See 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A). Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its national award signifies 
that the Beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic field. 
With respect to the Beneficiary's research contributions, the record includes letters of support 
discussing his water management projects for the Petitioner and his graduate research atc=J under 
the guidance of his master's thesis advisor, Dr. K-L. 9 For example, regarding the Beneficiary's work 
for the Petitioner, M-S-, its president, stated that the Beneficiary "has successfully led the IoT 
department and developed a real-time water pressure and water quality reporting product. This 
product is currently helping utilities and cities immensely reduce the non-revenue water loss and abide 
by the department of water resources water loss regulations." M-S- farther indicated that the 
Beneficiary's "work is helping [the Petitioner's] products to have massive added value and increase 
the revenue stream," but he did not sufficiently detail in what ways the Beneficiary's innovations have 
had a meaningful impact in the academic field beyond the Petitioner and its clientele, or have otherwise 
influenced the field at a level rendering the Beneficiary internationally recognized as outstanding. 
In addition, C-A-, Vice President of Corporate Business Development for D-I-, Inc., asserted that the 
Beneficiary's "research on wireless IoT network sensors for water utilities has significantly enabled 
water companies internationally and in the United States to connect wireless sensors for monitoring 
critical assets in the systems." While C-A- also claimed that the Beneficiary "has made extraordinary 
contributions to the field of water management, water loss, and water monitoring by developing real­
time monitoring using artificial intelligence," he did not offer specific examples of how the 
Beneficiary's work has advanced the state of research in the academic field or explain how the 
Beneficiary's work has affected the wider field beyond the Petitioner and its clients at a level 
commensurate with being internationally recognized as outstanding. 
Furthermore, S-P-A-, Chief Engineer of the.________________ _,in Nepal, stated 
that the Beneficiary "has continuously distinguished himself for his highly detailed work" as 
"evidenced by his publication record." S-P-A- farther indicated that the Beneficiary's research "is a 
significant resource internationally for both academics and industry practitioners in the field of water 
management and monitoring. He has also been constantly invited to be a guest speaker at international 
scholarly conferences in this area." The record, however, does not include corroborating evidence 
showing that the Beneficiary's water management publications and presentations have influenced the 
academic field, have been extensively cited by independent researchers, or have otherwise risen to the 
level of a contribution that is recognized internationally as outstanding. We recognize that research must 
add information to the pool of knowledge in some way in order to be accepted for publication, 
presentation, fonding, 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. 
7 The Petitioner was honored based on its "sustained increase in exp01t sales over a four-year period." 
8 The Form 1-140 petition in this matter was filed in August 2022. 
9 While we discuss a sampling of the letters of support, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
Regarding the Beneficiary's graduate research, Dr. K-L-, professor in electrical and computer 
engineering ate=] explained that the Beneficiary's master's thesis "addresses the ability of networks 
of air quality sensors to determine the location public source of particulate pollution, whether that be 
a factory chimney or a forest fire, as well as the rate at which that source is emitting the particles." 
Dr. K-L- further asserted that this work "will help further research in this field with better prediction 
accuracy," but he did not provide specific examples indicating that the Beneficiary's work has affected 
the field in a substantial way that signifies international recognition or outstanding achievement in the 
academic field. 
The Petitioner argues that the aforementioned letters show "that the Beneficiary's work has been 
internationally recognized" and that he "has risen to the top of the field." The letters of support 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 the references he selected, as substantially influential or otherwise 
indicative of international recognition. 
As it pertains to the Beneficiary authorship of scholarly articles, the record includes his master's thesis, 
entitled and an article 
by him in International Journal of Computer Systems (2016), entitled '---------~-----1
I I The Petitioner also submitted a conference paper by the Beneficiary, entitled,___~ 
that wasL------------,-----------,-------------,-----,-------' 
presented at both the.__ ______ _.Conference (2021) and the,____~ Seminar (2022). 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. 10 
The Petitioner submitted a Google Scholar citation profile for an individual ha viig th[ same name as 
the Beneficiary, who was affiliated with the.__ _______ __, and not None of the 
Beneficiary's scholarly articles listed in the preceding paragraph is included in the submitted Google 
Scholar information. Nor did the Petitioner provide copies of any of the three articles listed in the 
Google Scholar citation profile. In addressing this document, the Director stated: 
A copy of Google Scholar submitted as evidence shows ... the 3 articles cited 
I and I 
Iappear to be published by [another individual] affiliated with the 
I The Beneficiary submitted evidence demonstrating his 
affiliation withl 
.__ _ ___,I. In addition, water supply systems management or water loss audit validation 
principles are not the subject of any of the three articles cited which you ... suggest 
I 
10 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). 
5 
are a part of the Beneficiary's academic expertise. Therefore, the relevancy of the 
articles and citations is questionable at best and a closer examination suggests that the 
Google Scholar page you submitted may not actually be ... the Beneficiary of this 
petition. 
The Petitioner does not challenge the Director's conclusion that the three articles listed in the Google 
Scholar citation profile are not the work of the Beneficiary. The Petitioner has not resolved this 
inconsistency in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead 
us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested 
immigration benefit. Id.; see also Matter ofO-M-0-, 28 I&N Dec. 191, 197 (BIA 2021). 
The Petitioner did not provide citation information for the Beneficiary's articles, entitled I 
.________ _.I Without statistical evidence comparing the number of citations received by the 
Beneficiary's articles with others in his field, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary's 
work has been recognized at a level consistent with outstanding achievement in the academic field. 
Nor has the Petitioner shown that the number of citations received by the Beneficiary's published and 
presented work is sufficient to demonstrate a level of attention commensurate with being recognized 
internationally in his field. See section 203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the Act. 
With regard to the 
invitations the Beneficiary received to present his paper at the 
Conference (2021) and the I ISeminar (2022), the Petitioner did not, fo~r_e_x_a_m_p-le-,-p-r-ov_i_d~e 
evidence from the organizers that invited the Beneficiary to participate indicating that they reserve 
their invitations for researchers who are recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic 
field. The Beneficiary's participation in the aforementioned conference and seminar demonstrates 
that his research findings were shared with others in his field, but without documenting broader impact 
of his presented research, such participation is not sufficient to show that his work is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in the academic field. 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence that the Beneficiary and M-S- have coauthored a U.S. patent 
application and received a "Notice of Recordation of Assignment." While a patent recognizes the 
originality of an idea, 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 shown in what ways the Beneficiary's invention has advanced the state ofresearch 
in the academic field or explained how the Beneficiary's work has affected the wider field beyond his 
employer and its clientele. The Petitioner therefore has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary's patent 
assignment has had an impact that is internationally recognized as outstanding in his field. 
As it pertains to the Beneficiary's participation as a judge of the work of others, the Petitioner 
submitted evidence indicating that the Beneficiar served as a ·ud e for the 
----------~~ (2022), the (2022 , the
2022 the 
(2022), and the.__ ___________ ~(2022). An evaluation of the significance of the 
6 
Beneficiary's judging experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence is indicative of the 
outstanding achievement required for this classification. 11 At issue here is the extent to which the 
Beneficiary's judging activities have required, reflected, or resulted in him being recognized 
internationally as outstanding in his field. The Petitioner did not present documentation indicating the 
aforementioned events' specific requirements for selection of judges. For instance, the record does 
not contain evidence demonstrating that they reserve their invitations for researchers who are 
recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field. Judging for events that select their 
reviewers 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. Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated how the 
Beneficiary's participation as a judge compares to or differentiates him from his peers in the field. 
Moreover, the record does not show that the Beneficiary has received any international recognition 
for his service as a judge. Without this or other evidence differentiating him from others in his field, 
the Petitioner has not established how the Beneficiary's participation as a judge contributes to 
establishing that he is internationally recognized as outstanding in his academic field. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
Although the evidence indicates that the Beneficiary is a skilled IoT and artificial intelligence 
engineer, the Petitioner has not established that he stands apart in the academic field through 
outstanding achievement and international recognition. After consideration of the totality of the 
evidence of the Beneficiary's work in the areas of water pressure monitoring, artificial intelligence 
predictive analysis, and interactive hydraulic modeling, including evidence of his published and 
presented work, citation record, participation as a judge, and patent assignment, as well as the opinions 
of his colleagues 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 demonstrates that the Beneficiary meets at least two of the evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A)-(F), and thus the initial evidence requirements for this classification. A 
review of the totality of the evidence, however, does not establish that the Beneficiary 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. 
11 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F .3(B)(l) (stating that a beneficiary's participation as a judge should be evaluated 
to determine whether it was indicative of the beneficiary being recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area). 
7