Executive Director For Data Science

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 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 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.