This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Director that while the Beneficiary met at least two evidentiary criteria, the totality of the evidence did not establish that he is internationally recognized as outstanding in his academic field.
A water management and GIS software company filed an I-140 petition to classify its Senior IoT Engineer and Lead Researcher as an outstanding professor or researcher. The Director denied the petition after finding the Beneficiary met three of the six evidentiary criteria (judging, research contributions, scholarly articles) but that the totality of the evidence did not demonstrate international recognition. On appeal, the Petitioner challenged the two-step Kazarian analysis itself, but the AAO upheld its validity. The AAO found that letters of support lacked specificity about broader academic impact, a submitted Google Scholar profile belonged to a different person, no citation data was provided for the Beneficiary's own articles, and a company export award did not reflect the Beneficiary's personal standing in the field. The appeal was dismissed.
What worked: The Beneficiary cleared the initial evidentiary threshold by satisfying three of the six regulatory criteria: participation as a judge, original research contributions, and authorship of scholarly articles in IoT, AI, and water management.
What failed: Letters of support from colleagues and industry contacts failed to document specific impacts on the broader academic field beyond the employer's clients. The Google Scholar citation profile submitted was found to belong to a different person, and no citation data was provided for the Beneficiary's actual articles, leaving his scholarly impact unquantified. The company's Presidential Export Award and the Beneficiary's patent application were not tied to his personal standing in the academic field.
Takeaway: For EB-1B petitions, meeting the initial evidentiary criteria is not enough — petitioners must document concrete evidence of broader academic field impact, such as verified citation counts, independent corroboration of the beneficiary's influence, and documentation that judging and conference invitations were reserved for internationally recognized experts. Always verify that any citation profiles or publication records submitted actually belong to the beneficiary and resolve any inconsistencies before filing.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-1B criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- The Beneficiary cleared the initial evidentiary threshold by satisfying three of the six regulatory criteria: participation as a judge, original research contributions, and authorship of scholarly articles in IoT, AI, and water management.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Letters of support from colleagues and industry contacts failed to document specific impacts on the broader academic field beyond the employer's clients
- The Google Scholar citation profile submitted was found to belong to a different person, and no citation data was provided for the Beneficiary's actual articles, leaving his scholarly impact unquantified
- The company's Presidential Export Award and the Beneficiary's patent application were not tied to his personal standing in the academic field.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Judging the work of others
MetBeneficiary served as judge for multiple events in 2022; criterion met at step one but judging evidence found insufficient to show international recognition at final merits stage
Original contributions of major significance
MetOriginal scientific/scholarly research contributions criterion met at step one (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E)); insufficient to demonstrate international recognition at final merits
Authorship of scholarly articles
MetAuthorship of scholarly articles criterion met at step one (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F)); citation evidence insufficient to demonstrate international recognition at final merits
Completed
I-140 filed
IoT and artificial intelligence researcher; Senior IoT Engineer and Lead Researcher in Artificial Intelligence for a water management and GIS software company
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2024-01-11
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Director that while the Beneficiary met at least two evidentiary criteria, the totality of the evidence did not establish that he is internationally recognized as outstanding in his academic field.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.