Mathematical Researcher

The Petitioner failed to meet the statutory requirement of proving intent to work in the field in the U.S. and only satisfied one EB-1A criterion (scholarly articles) instead of the required three. A finding of material misrepresentation was affirmed because the Petitioner submitted altered translations of judging evidence to make student competitions appear as professional ones. Other criteria challenges were deemed waived as the Petitioner did not specify errors in the Director's findings on appeal.

The Petitioner's 74 total citations and 12 cited publications were deemed insufficient to distinguish him from others in the field. His peer review activity (9 documented instances) was considered a common academic expectation rather than evidence of acclaim. His leading roles at Brazilian institutions and a U.S. fintech firm were acknowledged, but lacked evidence of resulting in widespread individual recognition.

The Petitioner's citation record (31 works, 27 manuscripts reviewed) was deemed typical for an early-career researcher rather than one at the top of the field. Only one paper had a high citation count, and the editorial board service for 'Frontiers' was considered less prestigious due to its open solicitation of members. The evidence failed to show the Petitioner's work had a major, pioneering influence on the broader field beyond a few individual researchers.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate satisfaction of two additional evidentiary criteria required for EB-1A classification. Specifically, the article submitted to China Banking and Insurance News was deemed not scholarly due to lack of research detail, peer review, or citations. For the high salary criterion, inconsistencies in tax records (5,567,813.42 RMB / $782,060 in 2021 and 7,787,602.62 RMB / $1,093,854 in 2022 vs. online records and employer letter) and lack of clarity on whether salary guides included stock compensation led to the finding that high remuneration was not established. The Petitioner only met one criterion (judging), falling short of the three required.