Data science: machine learning
The AAO dismissed the appeal, agreeing with SCOPS that although the petitioner satisfied at least three initial criteria, he had not shown sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
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 data scientist appealed SCOPS's denial of his EB-1A petition even though SCOPS had accepted three initial criteria, and the AAO dismissed the appeal on the final merits. His judging activity, citation figures, conference presentations and role in software tools were each weighed, and none was shown to place him at the very top of the field. The AAO noted that his cited work dated from his student years, that the few comparison profiles in the record showed other researchers with far higher citation totals, and that the record did not show his patent application had been approved. His successful work with a leading employer was acknowledged, but the record lacked extensive documentation of sustained acclaim.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| (iv) Judging the work of others | Met | SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner met three of the criteria, pertaining to judging, scholarly articles, |
| (v) Original contributions of major significance | Not reached | |
| (vi) Authorship of scholarly articles | Met | SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner met three of the criteria, pertaining to judging, scholarly articles, |
| (viii) Leading or critical role | Not reached | |
| (ix) High salary or remuneration | Met | and remuneration, and had not met the requirements of the other two claimed criteria. We will not |
Why the AAO decided this way
- SCOPS had found the judging, scholarly-article and remuneration criteria met; the AAO did not disturb that conclusion and, because at least three criteria were satisfied, reserved the contributions and leading-role criteria.
- His peer review and conference reviewing were acknowledged but not shown to reflect acclaim, and an invitation to review had not been shown not to be a mass-mailed form message citing only general expertise.
- Citation counts for two articles from his student years were not compared with others in the field, and the few other researchers' profiles in the record showed far higher citation totals.
- The record lacked objective evidence of public recognition for his role in creating software tools, the letters largely summarized other evidence, and the record did not show that a claimed patent application had been approved, so sustained acclaim was not established.
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)
- Matter of S-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49 (BIA 1998)
- Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994)
- Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126 (D.D.C. 2013)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976)
- Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011)
- Hamal v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021)
- Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002)
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