dismissed EB-1B Case: Academic Research

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
identifying data Wed to 
pzeveabt dearly ~-ted 
invasion of pgsond privacy 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: JAN 3 1 2007 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
\I 
2 Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The director reopened the matter on motion to amend the initial decision and subsequently 
denied the petition a second time. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
on certification. The director's decision will be affirmed. 
The petitioner is an institution of higher education. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding 
researcher pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
5 1153(b)(l)(B). On the petition, the petitioner indicated that it sought to employ the beneficiary in the 
United States as a "research associate." The director determined that the petitioner had not established 
that it had offered the beneficiary a permanent job as of the date of filing, that the beneficiary had the 
necessary experience or that the beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in her academic 
field, as required for classification as an outstanding researcher. 
Counsel filed an appeal, listing the receipt number for this petition but asserting that the appeal related 
to a national interest waiver petition pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Act. The brief also includes 
several references to the alien as a self-petitioner, which is not permissible in the classification sought 
in this matter. The content of counsel's brief, however, does address the issues raised by the director in 
this matter. Thus, the appeal does appear to relate to this petition. 
On appeal, counsel referenced certain factual mistakes by the director, such as the name of the 
beneficiary's supervisor and pronouns referencing the beneficiary. Counsel concluded that these 
mistakes demonstrated that the director had not thoroughly examined the record of proceeding. As 
stated above, the director reopened the matter and amended the beneficiary's supervisor and the 
relevant pronouns. On certification, counsel asserts that the director erred in allowing the same 
adjudicator to review the multiple petitions filed in behalf of the beneficiary and in allowing this same 
adjudicator to review the petition after the appeal was filed. Counsel requests a de novo review by this 
office and asserts that the initial concerns raised on appeal have not been resolved by the amended 
decision. 
In addition, counsel requests oral argument. The regulations provide that the requesting party must 
explain in writing why oral argument is necessary. Furthermore, Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (CIS) has the sole authority to grant or deny a request for oral argument and will grant 
argument only in cases involving unique factors or issues of law that cannot be adequately addressed 
in writing. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(b). In this instance, counsel identified no unique issues of law to be 
resolved. In this matter, the written record of proceeding fully represents the facts and issues in this 
matter. Consequently, the request for oral argument is denied. 
Counsel provides no legal authority or policy, and we know of none, that would preclude a single 
adjudicator fkom reviewing different petitions filed on behalf of the same individual. It could be 
credibly argued that review by a single adjudicator insures consistency, improves efficiency and 
prevents contradictory claims from being advanced in separate proceedings involving the same 
individual. We note that current procedures do allow for a second review through the appeals process. 
At the outset, we note that counsel alleges incompetence at the Service Center level, requesting that the 
adjudicator responsible for the decision be fired. Specific allegations, such as asserting that the 
adjudicator failed to review the record in this matter, appear unfounded. The use of boilerplate 
language, per se, is not evidence that the record was not reviewed. Many petitions in the same 
classification involve similar issues and it is unreasonable, to say nothing of inefficient, to expect the 
director to craft entirely original responses to similar evidence and assertions. Moreover, while the 
director's use of the wrong pronoun for the beneficiary reflects some carelessness, the gender of the 
beneficiary is not material to the merits of the petition. As discussed below in our discussion of the 
beneficiary's contributions to her field, counsel himself used incorrect pronouns on page 3 of his initial 
cover letter, suggesting that he employs the beneficiary. 
While the director mistakenly references n page 3 of the original decision, on page 2 of the 
original decision, the director correctly identifies the petitioner's faculty providing letters in this matter 
as including and The decision includes numerous 
subsequent statements of fact that also correspond to the petitioner and beneficiary in this matter. Thus, 
the original decision does not appear to be a case where the director did not review the record and 
merely relied exclusively on language from another decision. 
Counsel's more specific assertions will be addressed below. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(B) Outstanding Professors and Researchers. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in the 
academic area, and 
(iii) the alien seeks to enter the United States -- 
(I) 
 for a tenured position (or tenure-track position) within a 
university or institution of higher education to teach in the 
academic area, 
( 
 for a comparable position with a university or institution of 
higher education to conduct research in the area, or 
(ID) for a comparable position to conduct research in the area 
with a department, division, or institute of a private employer, if 
the department, division, or institute employs at least 3 persons 
full-time in research activities and has achieved documented 
accomplishments in an academic field. 
Permanent Job Offer 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(i)(3)(iii) provides that a petition must be accompanied by: 
An offer of employment from a prospective United States employer. 
 A labor 
certification is not required for this classification. The offer of employment shall be in 
the form of a letter from: 
(A) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the alien 
a tenured or tenure-track teaching position in the alien's academic field; 
(B) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the alien 
a permanent research position in the alien's academic field; or 
(C) A department, division, or institute of a private employer offeving the alien a 
permanent research position in the alien's academic field. The department, 
division, or institute must demonstrate that it employs at least three persons full- 
time in research positions, and that it has achieved documented 
accomplishments in an academic field. 
(Emphasis added.) Black's Law Dictionary 11 11 (7" ed. 1999) defines "offer9'aas "the act or an 
instance of presenting something for acceptance" or "a display of willingness to enter into a contract 
on specified terms, made in a way that would lead a reasonable person to understand that an 
acceptance, having been sought, will result in a binding contract." Black's Law Dictionary does not 
define "offeror" or "offeree." The online law dictionary by American Lawyer Media (ALM), available 
at www.law.com, defines offer as "a specific proposal to enter into an agreement with another. An 
offer is essential to the formation of an enforceable contract. An offer and acceptance of the offer 
creates the contract." Significantly, the same dictionary defines offeree as "a person or entity to 
whom an offer to enter into a contract is made by another (the offeror)," and offeror as "a person or 
entity who makes a specific proposal to another (the offeree) to enter into a contract." (Emphasis 
added.) 
In light of the above, we concur with the director that the ordinary meaning of an "offer" requires that it 
be made to the offeree, not a third party. As such, regulatory language requiring that the offer be made 
"to the beneficiary" would simply be redundant. Thus, a letter addressed to CIS affirming the 
beneficiary's employment is not a job offer within the ordinary meaning of that phrase. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(2), provides, in pertinent part: 
Permanent, in reference to a research position, means either tenured, tenure track, or for 
a term of indefinite or unlimited duration, and in which the employee will ordinarily 
have an expectation of continued employment unless there is good cause for 
termination. 
On Part 6 of the petition, the petitioner indicated that the proposed employment was a permanent 
position. The petitioner submitted a letter from a professor at the petitioning institution, 
addressed to CIS, asserting that the beneficiary "will be employed with us full-time as a Research 
Associate after thesis defense for her Doctoral degree." This document does not constitute a job offer 
from the petitioner to the beneficiary. On January 31, 2005, the director requested evidence that the 
petitioner had extended a permanent job offer to the beneficiaryprior to the filing of the petition. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a June 1, 2003 letter from dressed to the director 
confirming the petitioner's interest in employing the beneficiary "on a full-time indefinite basis as a 
Research Associate." also affirms his hiring authority as Chairman of the petitioner's 
Department of Biochemistry & Cancer Biology. In a second letter dated March 6, 2005,m~ 
affirms that the beneficiary was promoted to Research Assistant Professor after working as a Research 
Associate for one year. The petitioner also submitted a May 25, 2005 press release announcing the 
beneficiary's promotion to assistant professor. 
The director questioned authority to hire permanent employees and concluded that the 
initial job offer, as of the date of filing, was a "postdoctoral" position and "at will." Thus, the director 
concluded that the position was not permanent as defined at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(2). 
On appeal, counsel dismisses all of the director's discussion as "sophistry" and provides a lengthy 
discussion of how the Department of Labor (DOL) defines "permanent." Counsel has not explained, 
however, why DOL's definition of "permanent" is relevant for the benefit sought. The statute does not 
use the term "permanent," but "comparable" to tenure or tenure-track. The pertinent regulation clarifies 
that in order to be comparable to tenure or tenure track the position must be "permanent," as defined in 
clear and unambiguous terms in the regulation relating to this classzfication. Where the regulation 
addressing a given classification includes its own definition for a given term, such as permanent, it is 
that definition, and no other, that is relevant. Thus, DOL's definition of 'permanent" for their own 
purposes is irrelevant in this matter. In light of the above, we find that the director's focus on the 
definition of "permanent" at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(2) was legally sound. 
Page 6 
In evaluating the evidence relating to the petitioner's job offer to the beneficiary, we must first consider 
whether the initial required evidence was even submitted. For the reasons discussed above, we read the 
statute and regulation as requiring the submission of the actual job offer issued by the petitioner to the 
beneficiary prior to the date of filing. The petitioner has never submitted the actual letter issued by the 
petitioner to the beneficiary. The failure to submit the required initial evidence creates a presumption 
of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2). The petitioner has not established that it, a major university, 
does not issue job offer letters to prospective employees. Thus, the petitioner has not established that 
such evidence is unavailable or does not exist. As such, the petitioner cannot rely on secondary 
evidence of a job offer or affidavits affirming the terms of a job offer that is not in the record. Id. 
Counsel notes that the petitioner promoted the beneficiary in 2005 and that the beneficiary has worked 
for the petitioner for three years since the filing of the petition. While such evidence might be relevant 
to the beneficiary's expectation of continued employment from this point forward, the petitioner must 
establish the beneficiary's eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg. Cornm. 1971); Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 
(Reg. Comm. 1978). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been 
filed in an effort to make an apparently deficient petition conform to CIS requirements. See Matter 
of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm. 1998). Thus, the petitioner cannot secure a priority 
date for the beneficiary by filing a petition based on speculation that the beneficiary will eventually earn 
a promotion or demonstrate continued employment. 
In promulgating the final regulation, the Immigration and Naturalization Services, now CIS, 
recognized that it is unusual for colleges and universities to place researchers in tenured or tenure- 
track positions. Thus, the commentary to the final rule accepts that research positions "having no 
fixed term and in which the employee will ordinarily have an expectation of permanent employment" 
as comparable. (Emphasis added.) 56 Fed. Reg. 60867, 60899 (November 29, 1991). Without the 
initial job offer issued by the petitioner to the beneficiary prior to the date of filing, we cannot 
determine whether that initial job offer constitutes a permanent offer as defined at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(i)(2). 
Three Years Experience 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or researcher 
must be accompanied by: 
(ii) Evidence that the alien has at least three years of experience in teaching and/or 
research in the academic field. Experience in teaching or research while working on an 
advanced degree will only be acceptable $the alien has acquired the degree, and ifthe 
teaching duties were such that he or she had full responsibility for the class taught or if 
the research conducted toward the.degree has been recognized within the academic 
field as outstanding. Evidence of teaching andlor research experience shall be in the 
form of letter(s) from former or current employer(s) and shall include the name, address, 
and title of the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by the alien. 
(Emphasis added.) We interpret the emphasized text as requiring acquisition of the advanced degree as 
of the date of filing if the experience while working towards that degree is to be counted. 
This petition was filed on June 11, 2003 to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in the 
field of molecular biology. Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary had at least 
three years of research experience in this field as of June 11,2003, and that the beneficiary's work has 
been recognized internationally within the field of molecular biology as outstanding. 
Pages 1 and 2 of counsel's initial brief, submitted with the petition, indicated that the beneficiary was 
still a Ph.D. student. 
 Counsel asserted that she had "completed her work for her Ph.D." The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 
534 (BIA 1988); Matter of laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N 
Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The initial letter from 
 indicated that the petitioner would 
employ the beneficiary as a research associate "after thesis defense for her Doctoral degree." In a more 
detailed letter, asserted that the beneficiary was "a Ph.D. candidate." 
The director's request for additional evidence provided: 
Submit evidence that the alien has at least three years of experience in teaching and/or 
research in the academic field. Experience in teaching or research while working on an 
advanced degree will only be acceptable if the alien has acquired the degree, and if the 
teaching duties were such that he or she had full responsibility for the class taught or if 
the research conducted toward the degree has been recognized within the academic field 
as outstanding. Evidence must be in the form of letter(s) from current or former 
employer(s) and must include the name, address, and title of the writer, and a specific 
description of the duties performed by the alien. 
Counsel acknowledged this request in his response, asserting that a March 6, 2005 letter from rn 
reflecting that the beneficiary "has 6.5 years of teachingresearch experience" resolves this 
C issue. ounsel did not reference any other exhibit as relating to this issue. Significantly, while the 
petitioner's response includes evidence of the beneficiary's promotion to research assistant professor, it 
does not include the beneficiary's Ph.D. or transcript. Thus, the record remains absent primary 
evidence of this degree. While the record contains secondary evidence consistent with the beneficiary's 
eventual acquisition of this degree, we are unable to determine exactly when the beneficiary acquired 
this degree. Significantly-asserts on March 6,2005 that the beneficiary was promoted to a 
research assistant professor after one year of employment as a research associate. The press release 
announcing the beneficiary's promotion is dated May 25, 2005, suggesting that the beneficiary might 
not have acquired her Ph.D. until early 2004, well after the petition was filed in June 2003. Regarding 
the beneficiary's 
 he is writing "to confirm" that she has six and one 
half years of research 
 institution including five years as a Ph.D. student. 
The director concluded that since the beneficiary had not completed her Ph.D. as of the date of filing, 
she could not rely on her research experience while working towards that degree. On appeal, counsel 
responds: 
Evidence submitted at the time did establish that the beneficiary had much more than 
three years experience at teaching and doing research. Had the examiner bothered to 
read the evidence he would have seen that. Had he bothered to REQUEST the exact 
evidence he is now referring to at any time prior to the denial, it would have been 
provided. Stating that specific evidence was not provided when it was never requested 
and is not mandated by the statute is a faulty reason for denying. This, like almost 
everything else in this denial is total garbage, taken from a boilerplate denial. 
Evidence submitted with the original petition showed that [the beneficiary] worked as 
an Assistant Lecturer and Research Associate at Shandong Medical University from 
1996 to 1998. Her teaching and research career started in 1993 when she was a Master 
Degree student. 
Counsel's complaints are unsupported by the record. First, "the statute," section 203(b)(l)(B)(ii) of the 
Act, does mandate that the alien have at least three years of experience. It is the petitioner's burden to 
demonstrate every element of eligibility. Section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 136 1. Thus, the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(i)(3)(ii) requires evidence of this experience. Moreover, counsel's assertion that the 
director did not request the exact evidence required is patently false. As quoted above, the director very 
specifically requested such evidence, advising that only student work leading to an acquired advanced 
deaee could be considered. Counsel ex~licitlv res~onded to this reauest, referencing only the letter 
I * I 1 ' V d 
the beneficiary's work for the petitioner. Thus, the 
experience at Shandong Medical University is at least in 
part based on counsel's own statements regarding this issue. Nevertheless, we concur with counsel's 
appellate assertion that the experience in China is at least relevant and will discuss it below. 
The beneficiary obtained her Master's Degree from Shandong Medical University in July 1996. In 
response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a letter fro- 
Dean of the School of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Shandong Medical University. - 
asserts that the beneficiary "has 5 years of research experience at Shandong Medical University 
including 3 years of research leading to her Master degree in Biomedical Pharmaceutics and two years 
working as a research associate and assistant lecturer." 
For the reasons discussed below, we do not find that the beneficiary's Master's degree research has 
been recognized within the academic field as o 
 hus, we cannot count that work towards 
her three years of experience. Moreover, while 
 references specific courses for which the 
beneficiary was responsible, he does not indicate whether the beneficiary taught those courses while 
still a student or only while an assistant lecturer. Thus, the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary has three years of teaching experience. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary had the necessary three 
years of experience as of the date of filing. 
International Recognition 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence of the beneficiary's recognition as 
outstanding, counsel asserted "that the actual standard is 'national or international reputation. "' This 
standard does not appear in the statute or the regulation. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) 
states that a petition for an outstanding professor or researcher must be accompanied by "[elvidence 
that the professor or researcher is recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field 
specified in the petition." (Emphasis added.) The regulation lists six criteria, of which the petitioner 
must satisfy at least two. It is important to note here that the controlling purpose of the regulation is to 
establish intemational recognition, and any evidence submitted to meet these criteria must therefore be 
to some extent indicative of intemational recognition. More specifically, outstanding professors and 
researchers should stand apart in the academic community through eminence and distinction based 
on intemational recognition. The regulation at issue provides criteria to be used in evaluating 
whether a professor or researcher is deemed outstanding. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (July 5, 1991). 
The petitioner claims that the beneficiary has satisfied the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement in 
the academic field. 
In his initial brief, counsel asserted that the beneficiary won five student awards fiom Shandong 
Medical University. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534; Matter of laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 1; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 
17 I&N Dec. at 506. The petitioner submitted a single student award issued to the beneficiary by 
Shandong Medical University on July 4, 1996. 
The petitioner's subsequent submission was not responsive to the director's request for evidence as to 
the significance of any prizes or awards won. The director concluded that the record did not contain 
evidence regarding the national or intemational significance of the beneficiary's student award and that 
student awards recognize academic achievements. The director also concluded that the beneficiary's 
research hnding and oral presentations, not presented as evidence to meet this criterion, were 
insufficient. In addressing the beneficiary's funding, the director asserted that while the past 
achievements of the principal investigator are a consideration in granting funding, its ultimate purpose 
is to fund future research, not recognize past achievement. 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets any criteria not discussed in this decision and the 
record contains no evidence relating to the omitted criteria. 
On appeal, counsel notes that the criterion specified awards in an academic field and should not 
exclude academic awards. Counsel asserts that students are responsible for the most advanced research 
and, thus, student awards recognize the best research "published by anyone." Counsel also asserts that 
the director expressed concern that the beneficiary is not the principal investigator for the funding. 
Counsel is not persuasive. The record does not support counsel's assertion of fact that most scientists' 
research careers are over upon obtaining a P~.D.~ If counsel's assertions on this issue are true, it can be 
expected that the majority of Nobel Prizes or awards of a similar caliber would recognize work 
performed while the recipient was a student. The record contains no evidence that this is the case. 
Significantly, all of the beneficiary's references have continued their research careers after obtaining 
their doctoral degrees and the United States boasts numerous universities where vast amounts of 
research is being performed by faculty and research staff. Moreover, while intellectual property 
considerations may delay the publication of private research, counsel is not persuasive in suggesting 
that such research is not "advanced" or eligible for major awards. 
It is significant that the proposed regulation relating to this classification would have required evidence 
of a major international award. The final rule removed the requirement that the award be 
"international," but left the word "major." The commentary states: "The word "international" has been 
removed in order to accommodate the possibility that an alien might be recognized internationally as 
outstanding for having received a major award that is not international." (Emphasis added.) 56 Fed. 
Reg. 60897-01,60899 (November 29,199 1 .) 
Thus, the standard for this criterion is very high. The rule recognizes only the "possibility" that a major 
award that is not international would qualify. Significantly, even lesser international awards cannot 
serve to meet this criterion given the continued use of the word "major" in the final rule. Cf: 8 C.F.R. 
4 204.5(h)(3)(i) (allowing for "lesser" nationally or internationally recognized awards for a separate 
classification than the one sought in this matter). 
While 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A) references outstanding achievements in one's academic field, 
8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(i)(2) defines "academic field" as "a body of specialized knowledge offered for study." 
The definition does not include typical bases for student awards, such as grade point average and class 
standing. It remains, academic study is not a field of endeavor, academic or otherwise. Rather, 
academic study is training for a future career in an academic field. As such, student awards in 
recognition of academic achievement, such as grade point average, are insufficient. 
We acknowledge that the beneficiary's award is in recognition of her research. While Shandong 
Medical University may be one of the top universities in China, it remains that the beneficiary only 
competed against other students at the university at that time for the student award. Student awards are 
2 
 As stated above, the unsupported factual assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534; Matter of laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 1; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N 
Dec. at 506. 
Page 11 
simply not evidence of international recognition in the field. Rather, they represent high academic 
achievements in comparison with the recipient's fellow students. 
On appeal, counsel accuses the director of filing to consider that in 2005, the beneficiary applied for 
funding as the principal investigator. Counsel's appellate brief completely mischaracterizes the 
director's concerns regarding the beneficiary's funding. The director never stated or implied that the 
beneficiary was not the principal investigator. Rather, the director noted that funding is not granted in 
recognition of past achievements. We concur with the director on this point. Obviously, as stated by 
the director, the past achievements of the principal investigator are a factor in grant proposals. The 
funding institution has to be assured that the investigator is capable of performing the proposed 
research. Nevertheless, a research grant is principally designed to fund future research, and not to 
honor or recognize past achievement of the principal investigator. Thus, regardless of whether the 
beneficiary was the principal investigator, and she was not prior to the date of filing, the funding cannot 
be considered an award or prize recognizing past achievements. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic field which require 
outstanding achievements of their members. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of the beneficiary's membership in the American Association for 
Cancer Research (AACR). Materials provided by the petitioner state that membership in AACR is 
"open to investigators worldwide." More specifically, prospective members must demonstrate two 
years of research resulting in peer-reviewed publications or substantial contributions in an 
administrative or educational capacity. 
The petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence that the associations of which the 
beneficiary is a member require outstanding achievements of their members did not include any 
additional information about AACR or any additional memberships. The director concluded that the 
petitioner had not established that AACR membership is limited to those with outstanding 
achievements. Counsel does not challenge this conclusion on appeal and we concur with the director. 
Published material in professional publications written by others about the alien's work in the 
academic field. Such material shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 
Counsel initially indicated that Exhibit D of the initial submission included "Reports on [the 
beneficiary's] discovery." Exhibit D includes a July 30, 2002 article in Reuters ~ellth about Lm~ 
findings published in Blood. 
 The citation for the article by 
 being discussed is 
provided in the article as "Blood 2002; 100:594-602." Another undated Reuters article references a 
2000 article in Blood. Initial Exhibit D also includes the beneficiary's article coauthored with 
hat appeared in Blood. The beneficiary's article, however, was not even submitted to Blood 
until October 21, 2002 and was not published until 2003.~ The citation for the beneficiary's article is 
"Blood 2003; 101 :455 1-4560," which is not the citation provided by Reuters Health. The beneficiary's 
2003 article does cite the Blood article discussed by Reuters Health, listed under footnote 16. A review 
of the full citation reveals that the beneficiary is not listed as one of the authors for that article. Thus, 
counsel mischaracterizes the Reuters articles as being about the beneficiary's work. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence that the 
beneficiary's article in Blood has been cited 10 times, including two self-citations by and 
the beneficiary. All of the citations postdate the filing of the petition. The director concluded that 
articles which cite the beneficiary's work are primarily about the author's own work, not the 
beneficiary. As such, they cannot be considered published material about the beneficiary. 
On appeal, counsel titles his response to the director's discussion: "Published Material by the Alien." 
Counsel lists the beneficiary's publications and oral presentations. The criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) requires evidence of published material about the alien's work by others. Thus, 
none of counsel's discussion is relevant to this criterion. 
The regulation provides that the materials must be "about the alien's work." Obviously, the most 
persuasive evidence that an article is about the alien's work is credit given to the alien in the article 
itself. An article that does not mention the alien by name is typically not indicative of international 
recognition, the ultimate standard for the classification sought. The "reports" submitted not only fail to 
mention the beneficiary by name but also appear to discuss work published in Blood that does not list 
the beneficiary as a coauthor. We concur with the director that articles that cite the beneficiary's work 
are about the author's work, not the work cited. Moreover, all of the citations postdate the filing of the 
petition. Thus, they are not indicative of the beneficiary's recognition as of that date and cannot be 
considered. See 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Evidence of the alien S participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work 
of others in the same or an allied academic field. 
Dean of the School of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Shandong Medical University, asserts 
that the beneficiary was "invited to write multiple review articles for major journals in the 
harmaceutical field," a privilege limited to the "most authentic experts at the very top of the field." 
h does not indicate that he is an editor for the journals that published the articles or otherwise 
is responsible for selecting the authors of review articles. Initially, the petitioner submitted several 
articles in Chinese publications, including a 1996 article reviewing the latest advances in expression 
and purification of heterogeneous proteins synthesized in Escherichia coli, a 1997 review of recent 
advances on the study of streptokinase and its applications in medicine and a 1994 review of advances 
in the research of biochemical drugs in China during 1993. The petitioner did not submit the actual 
invitations from the journals themselves. It is noted that the beneficiary was a Master's student and 
3 
 The article did appear online prior to formal publication. 
recent graduate at the time. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary herself, and not her 
mentor, was specifically solicited based on her international reputation. In response to the director's 
request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted the beneficiary's 2003 review article. The 
article bears no indication as to whether it was published prior to the filing date in June 2003. While 
counsel listed the article as an exhibit, counsel did not indicate that it was being submitted to meet this 
criterion. 
The director did not specifically consider the above evidence. Rather, the director acknowledged the 
beneficiary's teaching experience but concluded that teaching responsibilities do not set a teacher apart 
fiom others in the field. The director ultimately concluded that the record lacked evidence of judging 
responsibilities that would set the beneficiary apart fiom others, such as serving on an editorial board. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director ignored the letters attesting to the beneficiary's "invited 
presentations and invited reviews." 
The beneficiary's presentations are presentations of her own work and are, thus, comparable to 
authorship of scholarly articles. Thus, they are better considered below pursuant to the criterion set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). The record contains four review articles coauthored by the 
beneficiary. As stated above, the record lacks evidence that the 2003 review was published prior to the 
date of filing. As stated above, the petitioner must demonstrate the beneficiary's 
date. Moreover, the final page of the 2003 review article submitted indicates that 
author for correspondence. The record lacks evidence that the beneficiary was the individual who was 
requested to compile the review article. The record contains no evidence that the beneficiary was 
personally solicited to author the Chinese review articles. Being requested to assist one's own 
professor or advisor on a review article is not evidence of international recognition. 
Finally, the record does not establish that compiling a review of advances in the field constitutes 
judging the work of others at a level indicative of international recognition in the field. Rather, such an 
article would appear to involve researching what has been published and its impact rather than 
performing a high level evaluation of such work. We concur with the director that without evidence 
that sets the beneficiary apart from others in her field, such as evidence that she has judged work under 
consideration for a major award, reviewed grant applications or served in an editorial position for a 
distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientzfic or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
field. 
As stated above, outstanding professors and researchers should stand apart in the academic 
community through eminence and distinction based on international recognition. The regulation at 
issue provides criteria to be used in evaluating whether a professor or researcher is deemed 
outstanding. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (July 5, 1991). Obviously, the petitioner cannot satisfy this 
criterion, set forth at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E), simply by listing the beneficiary's past projects and 
demonstrating that the beneficiary's work was "original" in that it did not merely duplicate prior 
research. Research work that is unoriginal would be unlikely to secure the beneficiary a master's 
degree, let alone classification as an outstanding researcher. Because the goal of the regulatory criteria 
is to demonstrate that the beneficiary stands apart fiom her peers through eminence and distinction 
based on international recognition, it stands to reason that the beneficiary's research contributions have 
won comparable recognition. To argue that all original research is, by definition, "outstanding" is to 
weaken that adjective beyond any useful meaning, and to presume that most research is "unoriginal." 
In counsel's initial brief, he asserts that the beneficiary "was recruited to my laboratory" and continues 
as if the beneficiary works for him. The language is not in quotes, indented, or otherwise attributed to 
another source. The record, however, does not reflect that counsel actually operates a laboratory and 
has employed the beneficiary4 Rather, the beneficiary obtained her Master's degree from Shandong 
Medical University, worked there for two years and then entered a doctoral program at the petitioning 
institution. While the beneficiary began working for the petitioner afier the date of filing, that work 
cannot be considered as evidence of her eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12); Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The petitioner submitted numerous letters in support of the petition, most of which are fiom 
independent sources. The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot forrn the 
cornerstone of a successful claim of international recognition. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(CIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See 
Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 1988). However, CIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's 
eligibility. See id. at 795-796. CIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, 
in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; See also Matter of Soffici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Cra$ of California, 14 I&N Dec. 
190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions that the beneficiary 
is well known and claims of "multiple original and significant contributions" or a "monumental 
dis~overy,"~ must be consistent with the remaining evidence of record. In addition, letters from 
independent references who were previously aware of the beneficiary through her reputation and who 
have applied her work are the most persuasive. 
uoted or otherwise attributed, counsel's language appears verbatim in a letter authored by 
5 
These phrases appear in several unrelated letters in the record. In addition, three separate references with no 
relationship to each other characterize either a journal or experts as "authentic." According to the Mirriam- 
Webster Dictionary 47 (New Ed. 2004), "authentic" means "genuine, real." It is presumed that all journals and 
experts are real; thus, "authentic" is an odd choice for three separate individuals. 
Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than 
new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An individual with intemational 
recognition should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim. 
asserts that the beneficiary's national reputation is apparent fmm the top-tier journals that 
published her work. We will not presume the influence of a given article fiom the publication in which 
it appeared. Rather, the petitioner must demonstrate the significance of the individual article. - 
sserts more specifically that the beneficiary genetically engineered E. coli bacteria to produce 
recombinant streptokinase, a medicine to dissolve vascular etically engineered 
streptokinase has fewer side effects than traditional streptokinase. rther asserts that the 
beneficiary's work led to China's first manufacture of recombin se. The record lacks 
evidence that the beneficiary is listed as an inventor on a Chinese patent or letters fiom Chinese 
pharmaceutical companies confirming that they manufactured recombinant streptokinase based on the 
beneficiary's methods. 
The beneficiary authored a single article reporting the results of her own research on the isolation and 
purification of recombinant streptokinase; the other article on this subject was a review article 
cataloguing the work of others. The beneficiary's article on the subject was published in China. The 
petitioner has not demonstrated that the journal has an international circulation. The record also lacks 
evidence that the beneficiary's process was used outside of China or that streptokinase manufactured in 
China has attracted intemational attention. Thus, the record lacks evidence that this work gained any 
recognition outside of China. Both the statute and the regulation require evidence that the beneficiary is 
recognized internationally as outstanding. 
asserts that the beneficiary "uncovered the mechanism by which folate is up-regulated in 
providing a less toxic strategy for treating leukemia. Specifically, this work provides 
guidance for targeting leukemia cells with chemotherapy. This work was published in Blood. While 
the references attest to the potential of this work to eventually result in more targeted chemotherapy for 
leukemia, the record lacks evidence that the pharmaceutical industry or anyone else is successfully or 
otherwise pursuing this potential. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the 
petitioner submitted evidence that eight independent research teams had cited this work. The 
petitioner, however, must establish that the beneficiary's work was recognized internationally as 
outstanding as of the date of filing. 
More significantly, 
 addresses the beneficiary's work with ChIP technology, asserting that 
the beneficiary has achieved what others could not using this technology. 
 ChIP technology is 
significant because it "provides a bridge connecting in vitro and in vivo methodologies that can be used 
to study the gene regulation in vivo." The beneficiary utilized this technology to "answer important 
questions about the mechanism of folate receptor regulation." An independent reference, 
of Harvard Medical School, explains that this work provides "guidance in up-regu ating o ate 
receptors, which is crucial to efficiently apply targeting treatment to cancer." 
w 
ma 
research scientist at Harvard Medical School, asserts that the beneficiary's developed models using 
ChIP technology have helped other research scientists, including - 
Finally discusses the beneficiary's development of yeast models expressing human folate 
receptors. While asserts that his laboratory is applying for a patent as a result of this work, 
the patent application is not in the rec0rd.t only asserts that these models are being used 
by "many investigators," but confirms using them himself. We will not entirely dismiss this claim, but 
would carry more weight if he had explained how this work, unpublished as of 
letter, had been disseminated and adopted by "many investigators." 
The remaining letters include similar discussions and need not be reproduced here. In addition, several 
letters submitted in response to the director's request for additional evidence reference work completed 
after the date of filing. That work is not relevant to this proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The claims in the letters are poorly corroborated by a record that reflects the beneficiary was a Ph.D. 
candidate with only a handful of full-length articles reporting her own results as of the date of filing. 
Significantly, none of these articles had been cited as of the date of filing. Nevertheless, the 
independent letters are from multiple institutions within and outside of the United States. Some 
provide specific examples of how the beneficiary's models and techniques are being applied. Thus, 
we are persuaded that the beneficiary meets this single criterion based on the letters, not the 
beneficiary's publication record. 
Evidence of the alien S authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the academic field. 
The petitioner initially submitted evidence that the beneficiary had authored six published articles and 
one abstract and had presented her work at three meetings including two in China and one at an AACR 
conference held in Toronto. The beneficiary's 1994 review article appeared in the Chinese 
Pharmaceutical Journal, a journal that references a company responsible for its "Overseas 
Distribution." The record lacks evidence that the other Chinese journals that published the 
beneficiary's articles have an international circulation as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). The record lacks evidence that the two meetings in China sponsored by Chinese 
associations were internationally significant meetings. For example, the record lacks the programs for 
these meetings reflecting whether it drew speakers from outside China. It is the petitioner's burden of 
proof to meet every element of a criterion and our concern that the record lacks this initial required 
evidence is a permissible appellate-level review of the evidence, including identifying regulatory 
deficiencies that may not have been expressly raised by the director. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see 
also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de 
novo basis). We further note that in his certification brief, counsel expressly requested that the AAO 
review this matter de novo. 
Counsel repeatedly emphasizes that the beneficiary's most recent article (as of the date of filing) 
appeared in Blood. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner 
submitted additional articles published by the beneficiary and evidence that, after the date offling, the 
beneficiary's article in Blood had been moderately cited. 
The director noted that publication is inherent to the field and concluded that the beneficiary's 
publication record was not notable. On appeal, counsel reiterates that the beneficiary's work appeared 
in Blood. 
The Association of American Universities' Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its 
Report and Recommendations, March 3 1, 1998, set forth its recommended definition of a postdoctoral 
appointment. Among the factors included in this definition are the acknowledgement that "the 
appointment is viewed as preparatory for a full-time academic andlor research career," and that "the 
appointee has the freedom, and is expected, to publish the results of his or her research or scholarship 
during the period of the appointment." Thus, this national organization considers publication of one's 
work to be "expected," even among researchers who have not yet begun "a full-time academic andlor 
research career." Moreover, the Occupational Outlook Handbook, available online at 
www.bls.gov/oco, provides that, for biological scientists, "a solid record of published research is 
essential in obtaining a permanent position involving basic research, especially for those seeking a 
permanent college or university faculty position." 
The above statements reinforce our position that publication of scholarly articles is not automatically 
evidence of international recognition; we must consider the research community's reaction to those 
articles. 
We will not presume the influence of the beneficiary's articles fiom the journals in which they 
appeared. Rather, we look for evidence of the influence of the individual article. The statute and 
regulation require evidence indicative of or consistent with international recognition as of the date of 
filing. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. As of the date of filing, 
the beneficiary's two articles in internationally circulated journals had yet to be cited. We are not 
persuaded that the record contains comparable evidence of the articles' influence. While the record 
contains numerous reference letters, discussed above, original contributions and scholarly articles are 
separate criteria. Moreover, as discussed above, the only work that was demonstrated as influential as 
of the date of filing was still unpublished. To presume that evidence relating to one criterion also 
serves to meet another would render the regulatory requirement than an alien meet at least two criteria 
meaningless. Thus, we concur with the director that the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary meets this criterion. The beneficiary's publication record as of the date of filing, a handful 
of articles that had not been cited, was not indicative of international recognition in the field. 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented researcher who is able to secure positive 
reference letters from members of the field and who has secured some degree of international exposure 
for her work. 
 The record, however, stops short of elevating the beneficiary to an international 
reputation as an outstanding researcher or professor. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that 
the beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the decision of the 
director denying the petition will be affirmed. 
ORDER: The petition is denied.