Data Scientist

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the minimum of three regulatory criteria. Specifically, the AAO withdrew the scholarly articles criterion due to the use of unreliable website traffic data from SiteWorth Traffic, which relied on defunct Alexa statistics. Furthermore, the final merits determination found no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or a career of acclaimed work.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not demonstrate a one-time achievement and failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the awards were not proven to be nationally or internationally recognized, membership in the Chinese Society of Particuology lacked proper translation and proof of outstanding achievement requirements, the patent's major significance was not documented, and the Petitioner's role at the organization was not shown to be leading or critical.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, memberships in associations (AAAI, IAENG, IEEE Computer Society, ISAC) did not require outstanding achievements judged by experts, and some memberships were still processing or lacked supporting documentation. Original contributions lacked major significance, as support letters were conclusory and citation statistics did not demonstrate widespread influence or heavy reliance by other researchers. The Petitioner's leading/critical role as Director of ICT and AI researcher was not sufficiently proven with organizational charts or evidence of the organizations' distinguished reputations. Subsequent citations post-filing were not considered as eligibility must be met at the time of filing.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate 'original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field.' The AAO found that citation records, even if placing the Petitioner in the top 10% or 1% by Clarivate Analytics, did not automatically establish major significance. Expert letters were deemed insufficient as they did not clearly explain how the Petitioner's work had a major impact on the field, with one paper having 7 citations, another 422 (but without detailing the impact of petitioner's work), and a third 9 citations. Peer review service was also not considered a major contribution, as it is primarily an evaluative process. The Petitioner only satisfied two of the ten criteria (judging and scholarly articles) and thus did not meet the minimum three required.