dismissed EB-1B Case: Statistical Machine Learning

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 13454322 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WLY 19, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Outstanding Professors /Researchers) 
The Petitioner, a university , seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an outstanding professor or researcher 
in the field of statistical machine learning in business . 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 additional documentation and 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 Master of Philosophy degree in Public Policy and Management (2013), 
Master of Science degree in Machine Leaming (2015), and Ph.D. in Information Systems and 
Management (2016) froml O I University. The Beneficiary is currently employed as an 
Assistant Professor of Economics in the Petitioner's Department of Information Technology (IT), 
Analytics, and Operations. 
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. 
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 USCIS 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, 25 I& 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 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
2 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i). In this matter, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not shown the 
Beneficiary's eligibility. 3 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that it has "met the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the 
evidence that [the Beneficiary] is an outstanding professor researcher." The Petitioner contends that 
the Beneficiary "has consistently been a reviewer for the top conferences and journals in his field for 
over 4 years." It further states that the Director disregarded independent letters discussing "the 
importance of [the Beneficiary's] original scientific and scholarly research contributions." 
Additionally, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary "is at the top of his research field when baseline 
citation rates and average percentiles are applied to his research in the field of Economics and 
Business." 
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 documentation indicating that he reviewed papers for the International Conference on 
Information Systems (seven), 4 the Conference on Information Systems and Technology (seven), the 
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS) Data Science Workshop 
(eight), the Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (eight), 5 and the 2019 Neural 
Information Processing Systems Artificial Intelligence for Social Good Workshop (five). The 
Petitioner also submitted emails showing that the Beneficiary reviewed three papers for the INFORMS 
2016 Data Mining Best Paper Competition and five papers for the 2018 Conference on Health 
3 In the final merits analysis, the Director's decision discussed the documentation relating to the Beneficiary's peer review 
activities, research contributions, published and presented 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. 
4 The Petitioner contends on appeal that "for 2019 [the Beneficiary] was an Associate Editor" for the International 
Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). While the Petitioner provided a July 30, 2019 email briefly thanking the 
Beneficiary "for serving as an AE/ reviewer for TCTS 2019," this evidence does not indicate how many other individuals 
were selected to perfonn reviews in an Associate Editor capacity, nor is there documentation from TCTS organizers 
explaining the difference, if any, between Associate Editors and reviewers. The Petitioner has not offered evidence 
showing the level of distinction of the Beneficiary's particular role or that his peer review work for TCTS was commensurate 
with being internationally recognized as outstanding in the academic field. 
5 The record shows that the Beneficiary reviewed four papers for the 2019 Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial 
Intelligence. Regarding the Beneficiary's review of four papers for the 2020 Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial 
Intelligence, these reviews were completed in April 2020 and post-date the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
3 
Information Technology and Analytics Best Paper Competition. 6 In addition, he provided emails 
stating that he reviewed manuscripts for Management I11formation Systems Quarterly (seven),7 
Information Systems Research ( eight), 8 Management Science (one), and Decision Sciences Journal 
(one). 
The Petitioner's response to the Director's notice of intent to deny (NOID) included an April 12, 2020 
letter froni I professor of information systems at University I I and al I 
for Information Systems Research, who stated that she "first interacted with [the Beneficiary] at the 
Conference on Health Information Technology and Analytics in 2016." I !farther indicated: 
"As a senior editor at Information Systems Research, I also got to know his scholarly abilities when, 
as a reviewer, he helped improve the quality of submitted manuscripts. Due to the high ranking and 
prestige of the journal, reviewer positions are reserved only for those who have proven to be truly 
outstanding and internationally recognized as experts in the field." Merely repeating the language of 
the statute or regulations, however, does not satisfy a petitioner's burden of proof Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff1d, 905 F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990). 
The Petitioner also rovided a web a e indicating that the Beneficiary was selected as a ... 1, -co~--~ 
~ for the held in November 2020. Additionally, the Petitioner 
presented a March 31, 2020 letter fro __ ._ ______ ___J professor of IT at Universit~ I 
andl !for Information Systems Research, who asserted that he and the other conference 
co-chairs "selected [the Beneficiary] to serve as program co-chair for the 202q I I I" I I farther stated: "Given that program chairs have the crucial role of 
managing a worldwide pool of expert peer reviewers and ultimately deciding which papers get 
presented at the workshop, such designations are reserved for scientific researchers who have risen to 
the very top of their field." The Petitioner, however, did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's 
involvement as one of three program co-chairs for the November 2020 I I I I involved judging the work of others prior to or at the time of initial filing. See 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
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. 9 Here, 
the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's participation as a reviewer is indicative of or 
consistent with being recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic area. 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. Without evidence that sets Jhe Beneficiary apart from others in the field, such as 
,__ __ but this request post-dates the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(I), ( 12). 
7 One of these manuscript review acknowledgement emails ( dated April 2020) post-dates the filing of the petition. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(6)(1), (12). 
8 Three of these manuscript review acknowledgement emails (dated March 20, 2020; March 29, 2020; and April 19, 2020) 
post-date the filing ofthe petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
9 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). 
4 
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 evaluation committees for reputable conferences prior to or at the time of 
initial filing, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's peer review experience has 
resulted in, or is reflective of, recognition at an international level for being outstanding in the field. 
With respect to the Beneficiary's research contributions, the record includes letters of support 
discussing his graduate research Jrojects under the guidance ofl I the Beneficiary's 
Ph.D. advisor at I University. 1° For examrle, regarding the Beneficiary's research 
involving machine learning, I professor at the University! I at 
I lstated that the Beneficiary "developed an innovative statistical method -1 I I I - for detecting I l large images. He and his team 
demonstrated the performance of their method in identifying I I locations on digital slides of 
I !samples." WhilJ • ~ndicated that the Beneficiary's work "is a clear 
example of how machine learning methods applied to information technology infrastructure improve 
the efficiency of1 I delivery," he did not offer specific examples of how the Beneficiarr,'s 
statistical method has been widely utilized in thd I industry for detectingl, or 
has otherwise influenced the field at a level commensurate with being internationally recognized as 
outstanding. 
With regard to the Beneficiary's research relating to "statistical machine learning and its application 
to healthcare literature,'! I professor of management a~~--~IUniversity, 
asserted that the Beneficiary "has published several scholar!] articles in significant publications such 
as his article entitled, I O which was published in Journal of 
Computational and Graphical Statistics (JCGS), selected for conference presentation by the journal's 
I land was named, I 1' 11 I I farther stated that "[t]his journal 
presents original research, contemporary developments in theory and methodology, and state-of-the­
art applications in the field of statistics and machine learning," but the record does not show that the 
Beneficiary's work has been extensively cited, has widely affected his field, or has otherwise risen to 
the level of a contribution that is recognized internationally as outstanding. 12 
In regard to the Beneficiary's~! -----~~I research,! I indicated that the Beneficiary 
presented an artic th Information Technology and Analytics that "provides a 
vital tool for the to decide which patients are likely to be admitted to the 
asserted that the Beneficia 's al orithm for redictin '----~ 
'can si nificantl reduce the wait times at thel,._ ___ ---r----,.. ___ ~ ____ __J 
1mproveL,._ ___ _,........--~',she does not offer specific examples of.__ __ _.that have implemented 
his work. Nor are s statements sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's findings 
10 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considl~ :a:~~~ 
11 The record does not include supporting evidence from JCGS to corroborate:: I claim that the Beneficiary's 
article received thid I designation. 
12 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. 
5 
1 
have influenced the field of I I in a substantial way that signifies international 
recognition or outstanding achievement in his field. 13 
In additionJ I asserted that the Beneficiary's article, entitled! 
tproposed1-,...:..::.::....:.:::.:..:..:..:.:....::::!:============: 
.__ __ ___.I forth er 
stated: 'The outcome of using such methods is not just early detection, but also revealing the 
underlying network, which can farther assist I I with designing interventions. 
Using simulated I [the Beneficiary] shows that his computationally efficient method detects 
.__ __ __,I accurately." The record, however, does not show that the Beneficiary's proposed methods 
have had a meaningful impact in his academic field or have otherwise been recognized internationally 
as outstanding in the area of I [ 14 
The Petitioner argues that the aforementioned letters of support show "the importance of [the 
Beneficiary's] original scientific and scholarly research contributions" and "explain why the 
contributions are outstanding 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 maintains that the Beneficiary's publication record renders him internationally 
recognized as outstanding in his field. The record indicates that the Beneficiary has published 
approximately 1 7 research papers since 2011. 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. 15 Here, the Petitioner submitted May 2020 information from 
Google Scholar indicating that the Beneficiary's four highest cited articles, entitled i I 
I I' (2015), I I I 1(2016) 1 I (2018). and 
I 
I I (2018), each received 25, 21, 10, and 9 citations, respe~tively. 16 The Petitioner 
does not specify how many citations for each of these individual articles were self-citations by the 
Beneficiary or his coauthors. 
13 According to citation information the Petitioner submitted from Google Scholar, the Beneficiary's article presenting this 
work has not received any citations since its publication in 2017. 
14 The Petitioner submitted information from Google Scholar indicating the Beneficiary's article presenting this work has 
received only three citations since its publication in 2017. 
15 See 6 USCIS 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). 
16 The Beneficiary's remaining articles were each cited three times or less. 
6 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided 2019 data from Clarivate Analytics (Essential Science Indicators) 
regarding baseline citation rates and percentiles by year of publication for various research fields, 
including "Clinical Medicine," "Computer Science," and "Economics & Business." Regarding this 
data, the Petitioner states: 
[The Beneficiary's] 2018 P .... a ..... e_r_s......_ _________________ __., 
... and 
'-----------------------------' 'has [sic] been cited 10 
and 9 times respectively, which places both papers in the top 1 % of papers published 
in the field of "Economics and Business" for that year. 
His 2015 a er, 
was cited 25 times which laces it right around the top 10% .... 
The 2016 paper, '.__ __________ __. with 21 cites falls halfway between 
the top 1 % and the top 10% of papers published in the field in that year. 
The Petitioner did not indicate whether it factored in any self-citations in determining the above 
percentile rankings. In addition, the Clarivate Analytics citation data is from 2019 and therefore does 
not capture citations that occurred after 2019, while the Beneficiary's Google Scholar citation report 
is dated May 1, 2020. 17 Because the Clarivate Analytics data is not contemporaneous with the 
Beneficiary's Google Scholar data, the Petitioner has not shown that the former provides a proper 
analysis of the Beneficiary's citation record. Nor has the Petitioner sufficiently explained its choice 
of the field of "Economics & Business," as opposed to "Clinical Medicine" or "Computer Science," 
as the basis for comparison. Accordingly, the baseline citation rates and percentiles from Clarivate 
Analytics do not establish that the Beneficiary's research articles are recognized internationally as 
outstanding in his academic field. 18 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. 
The record indicates that the Beneficia and four coauthors received a "2016 Best Pa er A ward -
Junior Researcher" from the .__ _____ __,...-----------------------; 
.===-=============....:fi:...:o..::.r....:t.:::h..::.e.::;ir paper, entitled .__ ____________________ ____. 
'-------------~' _I=n----=-raddition to the Beneficiary's award certificate, the Petitioner 
submitted information fro __ -... ___ __, website discussing the Best Paper A ward: 
17 Clarivate's "Essential Science Indicators Help" webpage indicates that its citation "data is updated six times a year." 
This webpage further states: "Citation frequency is highly skewed, with many infrequently cited papers and relatively few 
highly cited papers. Consequently, citation rates should not be interpreted as representing the central tendency of the 
distribution." See https://esi.help.clarivate.com/Content/field-baselines.htm (last visited July 8, 2021 ). 
18 According to the data from Clarivate Analytics, "Economics & Business" papers published in 2019 receiving only four 
citations are in the top 1 %. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that papers with such a citation count are necessarily 
internationally recognized in the academic field as outstanding by being among the top 1 % of most highly cited articles 
according to year of publication. 
7 
There will be a Junior and a Senior award category when at least 5 submissions are 
received in each category. For each category, there will be a Best Paper Award and 
Meritorious Mention. 
At the time of the award presentation, winners need to be a AIS ~------~ 
(only $10 for AIS members!) .... 
To be eligible as a Junior Researcher, you need to have been a student at the time the 
paper was published. 
The information froml I is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's award is 
commensurate with "major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement in the academic field." See 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A). The Petitioner has not offered supporting evidence showing the 
Beneficiary's "Junior Researcher" Best Paper Award's stature in the health information systems field 
or its international significance. Nor has the Petitioner shown that this "Junior Researcher" award is 
commensurate with being recognized as outstanding at the international level in the field. 
As documentation of published material in professional publications written by others about the 
Beneficiary's work, the Petitioner submitted an August 2014 article in New Scientist, entitled I I I I This brief article quotes the Beneficiary and discusses 
findin s resented b him and his collea ues in their research paper, entitled I I 
The article states, in part: 
The researchers~t_r_ai_·n_e_d_a~ ___________ on data from 133,000 patients 
who visited th a artnership of fourl I 
hospitals, between 2006 and 2011. Doctors called a times. By looking 
at 72 parameters including.__ __________ ~ 
~---------[ the system was able to tell, sometimes from data from 4 hours 
before an event, whether.__~----------.,.....--------' It guessed correctly 
about two-thirds of the time, while a scorecard flagged just 30 percent of events. 
lat the University! I say it may. be diflicult for the system 
.__to_w_o_r_k_id_,----,1 that don't collect such detailed data. The advantage of the 
scorecard, he says, is that it relies on a small number of parameters. "When we look at 
it from a statistical point of view, a small model is better." 
The algorithm still needs work - it reports a false positive 20 percent of the time, says 
[the Beneficiary]. To improve its performance, his team is planning to train the system 
with data from othd I 
While this article is about the Beneficiary's work, the Petitioner has not presented statistics or other 
evidence indicating that New Scientist has a readership that signifies international recognition in the 
Beneficiary's academic area. Furthermore, although the article indicates that the Beneficiary's work 
shows promise, it does not indicate that the Beneficiary's work is outstanding or otherwise viewed as 
widely influential in his field. For example, the article states that his "algorithm still needs work" and 
8 
notes that "it may be difficult for the system to work in .... l ---=-_-_.I that don't collect such detaile~~--~ 
data." 
Likewise, the Petitioner provided an August 2014 article (thirteen sentences) in Netzwoche, entitled 
I I that offers information similar to the aforementioned article and that does 
not highlight the Beneficiary's work as outstanding. For instance, the article explains that 
"development of the algorithm is not yet complete" and that the "software still gives a false alarm in 
20 percent of the cases." The record also includes content from Wikipedia stating that Netzwoche is a 
Swiss trade magazine for the information and communications technology industry and that the 
publication sold 4,563 copies and distributed 6,927 copies in 2018, but this information is not 
sufficient to demonstrate that the article about the Beneficiary's work signifies international 
recognition. With regard to information from Wikipedia, this online, open source, collaborative 
encyclopedia explicitly states it cannot guarantee the validity of its content. See General Disclaimer, 
Wikipedia (July 15, 2021), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer; Badasa v. 
Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). 
In addition, the Petitioner presented an August 2014 article in Pressetext, entitled!~~=-----~-~ 
In the same manner as the aforementioned articles, this article states that 
"development of the algorithm is still far from complete" and that the "software still delivers a false 
alarm in 20 percent of the cases." The record also includes information about Pressetext from its 
website, but USCIS need not rely on the self-promotional material of the publisher. See Braga v. 
Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO, ajf'd 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (C.A.9). Accordingly, this article does not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary's work is internationally recognized as outstanding in his field. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted an article in The Economist, entitled '.__~-----~---' 
but the author of this article was not identified and it is not about the Beneficiary's work. 19 See 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C). For example, the article is about the benefits and controversies associated with 
governments applying algorithms to public policy and not the Beneficiary's work. While the 
aforementioned articles in New Scientist, Netzwoche, Pressetext, and The Economist show that one of 
the Beneficiary's graduate research projects has received some media attention, this evidence falls 
short of rendering him internationally recognized as outstanding in the academic 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 field of statistical machine learning in business, including evidence of his "Junior 
Researcher" Best Paper Award, his research articles, citations to those articles by others in the field, 
his service as a peer reviewer, published material about his work, 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. 
19 The article includes only a single sentence mentioning the Beneficiary's work. 
9 
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. 
10