Lead Data Analyst

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for extraordinary ability. While the Director found two criteria met (scholarly articles and judging), the AAO found the Petitioner did not meet the criterion for published material about her due to insufficient evidence of the medium's major status, nor the criterion for original contributions of major significance, as citation counts (one paper cited only twice) and reference letters lacked sufficient detail to prove major impact in the field of data science. The Petitioner did not meet the minimum three criteria required, thus failing the initial evidence requirements.

The appeal was dismissed because, despite the Petitioner satisfying three initial criteria (judging, scholarly articles, and leading role), the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The activities cited, such as judging, authoring articles, and holding a leading role, were primarily limited to a short period (2021-2023, mostly 2023) immediately preceding the petition filing in 2023, failing to show a 'career of acclaimed work.' Additionally, memberships in BCS and IEEE were not deemed to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, and the high salary claim lacked comparison to top-level peers with similar experience and responsibilities.

The motion to reopen was dismissed due to a lack of new facts or documentary evidence. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Specifically, the AAO found its reliance on Krasniqi v. Dibbins for merit-based awards was correct, the petitioner's awards were for participation, not excellence. The petitioner also failed to show error in the analysis of the leading or critical role criterion, or the high salary criterion, as no comparative evidence was provided to show the salary was high in relation to others in the field.