Technology: machine learning and information retrieval engineering
The AAO dismissed the appeal, agreeing with USCIS that, although the Petitioner had satisfied at least three initial criteria (USCIS found four), the record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim.
Summarized by AI. Summaries on this site are written by AI and can contain errors. Always read the full decision on uscis.gov before relying on anything here. If a summary differs from the official decision, the official decision controls.
Summary
A senior machine learning engineer whom USCIS found to satisfy four EB-1A criteria was denied at the final merits stage, and the AAO upheld that result. The AAO rejected her procedural arguments, finding that she had not shown the denial's varying descriptions of her field affected the outcome, and that her claim that USCIS improperly applied an acclaim standard at the initial-criteria stage rested on RFE language rather than on any specific error in the denial itself. On the substance, the AAO noted that her citation figures and patent citations were not shown to reflect sustained acclaim, that the record documented only one issued patent, and that she had produced no public-facing output in the decade before filing. It concluded that her work was valued by her employers but had not earned the sustained national or international acclaim the category requires.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| (v) Original contributions of major significance | Not reached | we need not come to a definitive conclusion in this respect because there is no dispute that the Petitioner had already satisfied at least three |
Why the AAO decided this way
- The AAO rejected the argument that USCIS improperly re-weighed already-satisfied criteria, explaining, with reference to Kazarian, that considerations not relevant at the criteria stage may still be relevant to the final merits determination.
- Her most-cited paper had 71 citations over 12 years, and a Google Scholar printout showed 182 citations in total across ten works; she submitted no objective evidence showing that these figures reflected sustained acclaim.
- The record showed one issued patent rather than the six claimed, and forward patent citations were not shown, through objective context, to exceed those of others in frequency or significance.
- The Google Scholar printout showed no public-facing output in the decade before filing (her most recent paper appeared in 2014); recommenders framed her work against early-career peers rather than the top of the field, their own credentials appeared to substantially exceed hers, and employer praise and project-level recognition did not establish field-wide acclaim.
Authorities cited
- Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010)
- Matter of Christo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015)
- Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010)
- Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126 (D.D.C. 2013)
- Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011)
- Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994)
- Hamal v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021), aff'd, 2023 WL 1156801 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 31, 2023)
- Hamal v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020)
- Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002)
- H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 (1990)
Read the full decision on uscis.gov ↗
Please describe the error only. Do not send personal or case information. Anything you send will not be treated as confidential, and an error report does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Report an error in this summary