dismissed EB-1B Case: Academics

p1 THT K' copy 
DATE: JUN 252012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U,S. Citizenship and Immigration Service~ 
Administrative Appeals Office (1\1\0) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b )(1 )(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.s.c. § 1153(h)( 1 )(B) 
ON I3EHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of thc Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have heen returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form 1-29013, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires any motion to he filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
• \ 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.llscis.goY 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner is an institution of higher education/university. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an 
outstanding professor pursuant to section Z03(b)(I)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the 
United States as an assistant professor. The director determined that the petitioner had not established 
that the beneficiary had attained the outstanding level of achievement required for classification as an 
outstanding professor. 
On appeal, counsel, on behalf of the petitioner, submits a brief and additional evidence. Counsel 
asserts that the director's actions in denying an application that demonstrates three of the criteria for 
Outstanding Professor/Researcher were arbitrary and capricious. Counsel asserts that the director 
violated the mandatory procedures contained in the Adjudicator's Field Manual by failing to 
carefully examine the application form and all supporting documents. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.c. § 557(b) (""On 
appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see a/so .!anka v. 
u.s. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.Zd 1147, 1149 (9'" Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority has 
been long recognized by the federal courts. See e.g., So/tane v. DO.!, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. Z(04). 
I. Law 
Section Z03(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who arc 
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 10 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 --
Page 3 
(I) for a tenured position (or tenure-track position) within a 
university or institution of higher education to teach in the 
academic area, 
(II) for a comparable position with a university or institution of 
higher education to conduct research in the area, or 
(III) 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 ijeld. 
II. International Recognition 
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 "[ e ]vidence that the professor or researcher is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in the academic field specified in the petition." The regulation lists the 
following six criteria, of which the beneficiary must submit evidence qualifying under at least two. 
(A) Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding 
achievement in the academic field; 
(B) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations to the academic field 
which require outstanding achievements of their members; 
(C) 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; 
(D) 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; 
(E) Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the 
academic field; or 
(F) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly 
journals with international circulation) in the academic field. 
Page 4 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under a similar classification set forth at section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 59ti F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the 
petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given 
evidentiary criterion. With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court 
concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence 
submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final 
merits determination." [d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. I 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." [d. at 1122 (citing to 
S C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to 
this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
S C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
S USc. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
[d. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination 2 While involving a different classification than the one at 
issue in this matter, the similarity of the two classifications makes the court's reasoning persuasive to 
the classification sought in this matter. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will apply the 
test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de 1l0VO review, the AAO will conduct a new 
analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the two­
step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(I)(iv); So/talle, 381 F.3d at 145; 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 c.F.R. § 204.S(h)(J)(iv) (comparable to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(i)(3)(i)(D» and 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(vi) (comparable to 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(i)(3)(i)(F». 
'The classification at issue in Kazarian, section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Act, requires qualifying evidence under 
three criteria whereas the classification at issue in this matter, section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Act, requires 
qualifying evidence under only two criteria. 
Page 5 
Spencer Enterprises, fne. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2(01), aff'd, 345 
F.3d 683 ('lh Cir. 2003) (recognizing the AAO's de novo authority). 
III. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation oj'the alien's receipt o/major prizes or awards/or outstanding achievement in 
the academic field 
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 (Nov. 29, 1991.) 
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 tinal rule. Compare 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) (allowing for "lesser" nationally or internationally recognized awards fi.)f a 
separate classification than the one sought in this matter). 
While the beneticiary's curriculum vitae lists numerous honors and awards, the petitioner submitted 
documentation in support of the beneficiary as the recipient of four awards/grants. The director erred 
by failing to address the beneficiary's research awards/grants. Nevertheless, upon review, the AAO 
finds that the evidence does not qualify as major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement in the 
academic field. 
Regarding the beneficiary's research grants, research grants simply fund a scientist's work. Every 
successful scientist engaged in research, of which there are hundreds of thousands, receives funding 
from somewhere. Obviously 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. The evidence fails to establish that the beneficiary's 
awards were major prizes or that the awards for his outstanding achievement in the academic field. In 
light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted evidence of major prizes or awards pursuant to 
8 c.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A). 
On appeal, the petitioner did not assert that the beneficiary met this criterion or otfer additional 
evidence. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda v. u.s. Att'y Gell.. 401 
Page Ii 
F.3d 122ti. 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 20(5). Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that this criterion 
has been met. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic field which require 
outstanding achievements of their members 
The petitioner did not submit qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements set forth 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B). It is noted that the record contains the beneficiary'S curriculum vitae. 
which lists his membership in several associations. The petitioner must show that membership in the 
associations is based on the beneficiary'S outstanding achievements in the academic field. The record 
fails to contain such evidence. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be abandoned. 
Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 40] F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the petitioner 
has not established that this criterion has been met. 
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 allY 
necessary translation 
The petitioner submitted evidence of one article written by another that cites the beneficiary's work in 
the field. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) requires evidence of published material about 
the beneficiary's work. The AAO reads "published material" to mean the article itself, not a mere 
footnote or a single sentence within an article. Counsel asserts that the author listed one of the 
beneficiary's articles among only six citations. The article which cites the beneficiary's work is 
primarily about the author's own work, not the beneficiary's work. As such, it cannot be considered 
published material about the beneficiary's work. Given this, the record fails to contain evidence of 
published material written by others about the beneficiary's work. 
In light of the above, the citations are not qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C). 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work 
of others in the same or all allied academic field 
The petitioner submitted evidence that National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) invited 
the beneficiary to speak at the NCTM Research Pre session in 2011. This letter also indicates that the 
beneficiary has served as a reviewer of conference papers for the NCTM. This evidence qualifies under 
the plain language of the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D). 
Page 7 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
field. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E) does not require that the 
beneficiary's contributions themselves be internationally recognized as outstanding. That said, the plain 
language of the regulation does not simply require original research, but original "research 
contributions." Had the regulation contemplated merely the submission of original research, it would 
have said so, and not have included the extra word "contributions." See Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple 
Investor Fllnd, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3,d Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 
(2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). Moreover, the plain language of the regulation requires that the contributions 
be "to the academic field" rather than an individual laboratory or institution. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has authored scholarly articles. The regulations, 
however, include a separate criterion for scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). If the 
regulations are to be interpreted with any logic, it must be presumed that the regulation views 
contributions as a separate evidentiary requirement from scholarly articles. The petitioner did provide 
evidence that one independent researcher has cited the beneficiary's work. The number of citations per 
the article, however, is minimal. The beneficiary's citation record, by itself, is not indicative of 
contributions to the academic field as a whole. 
The petitioner submitted numerous letters trom the beneficiary'S peers and colleagues m order to 
establish original contributions. 
University of Gothenburg, explains that 
on the beneticiary's contributions to the 
field of Mathematics Education, particularly in the area of dynamic learning technologies in 
mathematics education. He discusses the beneficiary'S work on the tirst book on the international 
uses of GeoGebra. He describes that the beneficiary's work as "outstanding and groundbreaking" 
but fails to state how the beneficiary's work is already being applied in the academic field. 
University of Georgia, states that the bendiciary "quickly 
developed a as an young scholar" and "in the past three years, he has made 
presentations at national and international conferences." _ briefly discusses the 
beneticiary's work editing the first book on the use of GeoG~eficiary's presentations 
providing groundbreaking information about mathematics educator's innovative use of new 
instructional technologies, and the beneficiary's service as a reviewer of his peers' articles, including 
the prestigious journal of AECT - Educational Techllology Research & Development (ETR&D). He 
does not explain how those contributions have impacted the academic field. 
Johannes Kepler University Linz, 
discussed how not of dynamic mathematics learning 
modules to the GeoGebra International Forum, he has published his research findings at professional 
Page H 
journals." deSCI'lh,~s the beneficiary's contribution and editing of the first book on 
the international use of GeoGebra and his other published works. He fails to state how the 
beneficiary's work has impacted the academic field. 
Montana State University-Bozeman, discusses 
the beneficiary's research and presentation work. He also stated that the beneficiary's "research in 
the area of TPACK will become more widely influential as the Common Core State Standards are 
implemented throughout the United States." While_ describes the beneficiary's work, he 
fails to provide specific examples of the impact of beneficiary's work in the academic field. 
Speculation as to a future contribution cannot establish that the beneficiary has already contributed to 
the academic field as a whole. 
Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, states 
that the beneficiary "has to of Mathematics Education through his authorship of 
several chapters and editing of the first book on the international research and development of 
GeoGebra in mathematics education." _ describes the beneficiary's "work in editing the 
first GeoGebra book will certainly prove to be a ground-breaking contribution to the field." _ 
_ discusses how the beneficiary's work "will prove productive" and "will increase the ability 
of mathematics teachers to reach their students." __ speaks to the future and fails to explain 
how the beneficiary's work is already being applied in the academic field. Speculation as to a future 
contribution cannot establish that the beneficiary has already contributed to the academic field as a 
whole. 
University ·'SI. Clement of 
u,,'~u,,'" the "outstanding nature to the field of Mathematics 
Education, particularly in the area of mathematical modeling and dynamic learning technologies in 
education" She states she included the beneficiary's 2010 Mathematical Association America paper 
on the construction of a mirascope using dynamic technology as required reading for mOre than SOO 
students at her university. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~!'suniversity of Nicosia, discusses s publications in the journal of and its Application (JOMA) of 
Mathematical Association of America (MAA). describes the beneficiary's work as 
"ground breaking" and his articles "helped to fill an important void in these studies (dynamic 
mathematics learning technology)." He further states that the beneficiary's "work is widely used 
within the field as a starting point to study this issue." 
Page Y 
Fellow at Tufts University, states that the beneficiary is "an outstanding" 
professor. _ further states that the beneficiary's research has "already started helping us 
reconsider the use of dynamic technologies in school mathematics and professional development of 
mathematics teachers," explains how the beneficiary's "presentation was one of the 
cornerstones of the ground-breaking first annual North American GeoGebra Conference because of 
the breadth and the depth of the development and research in high-need areas of mathematics 
education. " 
As~;oclatI(m of Teacher Educators (ATE) 
Leadership Academy, discusses the beneficiary's presentations and participation in the ATE 
Leadership Academy, explains the rigorous selection process for presenters at annual 
conferences and states the bendiciary has been one of their most popular presenters with "six 
exceptional presentations". He discusses the beneficiary's work as a significant contributor and 
editor of the first book regarding the use of GeoGebra. He also states that the beneficiary's "work on 
mathematical modeling and simulations have been published by the Mathematical Association of 
America and utilized world-wide in mathematics education." 
Slue, describes how the beneficiary "contributed to the 
implementation of a new graduate degree program for teachers, the SMART program, that recently 
graduated 27 in-service teachers who are empowered to advance math and science education in 
southern IIlinoi K-12 schools, His research programs and outcomes are contributing to an important 
body of knowledge in our field and used widely to study educational reform issues." 
Education at the School of Education at New York 
Institute of 's presentation at a conference in 201 L 
states that the beneficiary's "study of the use of mathematical history to enrich teacher education 
using digital media was almost unprecedented in the field." He further states that the beneficiary's 
"research has taken these studies to a whole new level by incorporating digital media into 
mathematics teacher preparation and teacher development." 
Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University in AI-Khobar, 
discusses beneficiary's research contributions to the field of Mathematics Education, in 
particular, in the areas of mathematical modeling and simulations, _ states that he has 
"implemented _ work in model-centered learning in comp~n and instruction 
designs systems" and ._ work is tremendously useful in my own teaching and research.'" 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving," See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
(citing cases), The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction 
of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available," ld. If testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
Page ]() 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS 
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'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
/d. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may, as the AAO has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 
n.2 (BIA 20(8) (noting that expert opinion testimony docs not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable. /d. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'!. 
Comm'r. 1972». 
The record shows that the beneficiary is clearly respected by his colleagues and has made useful 
contributions, specifically through his published articles, presentations and editing of the first 
GeoGebra book. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly hook\- or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the academic field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of numerous articles authored by the beneficiary. Thus, the 
petitioner has submitted evidence that qualifies under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has submitted evidence that meets at least two of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establisb tbe minimum eligibility requirements for this classification. Specifically 
the petitioner submitted evidence to meet the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D), (E) and 
(F). The next step, however, is a final merits determination that considers whether the evidence is 
consistent with the statutory standard in this matter, international recognition as outstanding. Section 
203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the Act. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
It is important to note at the outset that the controlling purpose of the regulation is to establish 
international recognition, and any evidence submitted to meet these criteria must therefore be to some 
extent indicative of international recognition. More specifically, 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 
Page 11 
whether a professor or researcher is deemed outstanding. Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. 
Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5,1991) (enacted 56 Fed. Reg. ()()8'l7 (Nov. 29, 1991)). 
Demonstrating that the beneficiary's work wa~ "original" in that it did not merely duplicate prior 
research is not useful in setting the beneficiary apart in the academic community through eminence 
and distinction based on international recognition. 56 Fed. Reg. at 30705. Research work that is 
unoriginal would be unlikely to secure the beneficiary a master's degree, let alone classification as an 
outstanding researcher. 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." 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director erred by failing to carefully examine the application form 
and all supporting documents. As stated above, the petitioner submitted qualifying evidence to meet 
the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D), (E) and (F). Given this, the AAO will consider the 
evidence submitted in connection with those criteria. 
The fact that the beneficiary served as a reviewer of conference papers for the National Council of 
Teachers of Mathematics is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is indicative of the 
beneficiary's recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 20lO WL 725317 at"5. 
We tind that this service as a "judge" reHects recognition of the beneticiary beyond his collaborators. 
Regarding the beneficiary's published articles, the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook 
Handbook, 2008-2009 (accessed at www.bls.gov/oco on January 28, 2010 and incorporated into the 
record of proceedings), provides information about the nature of employment as a postsecondary 
teacher (professor) and the requirements for such a position. See www.bls.gov/oc0/ocos066.htm. The 
handbook expressly states that faculty members are pressured to perform research and publish their 
work and that the professor's research record is a consideration for tenure. Moreover, the doctoral 
programs training students for faculty positions require a dissertation, or written report on original 
research. Id. This information reveals that original published research, whether arising from research 
at a university or private employer, does not set the researcher apart from faculty in that researcher's 
field. The AAO cannot conclude that publication in scholarly journals in connection with a doctoral 
degree or university employer is indicative of or consistent with international recognition. 
The beneficiary's citation history is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is indicative of 
the beneficiary's recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. 
The record does establish that one of the beneticiary's articles has been cited; however, the evidence 
submitted reHects only a minor citation which is not consistent with being recognized as outstanding in 
the academic field. 
The nature of the beneficiary's expert letters is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is 
indicative of the beneficiary's recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. Here, the twelve 
expert letters represented people from seven different countries around the world. Based on this, the 
evidence is indicative of the beneficiary's recognition beyond a little more than his own circle of 
Page 12 
collaborators within the United States. Some of the expert letters state that the beneficiary's research 
work was either included as university required reading or implemented in teaching methods. The 
majority of experts describe the beneticiary's work on the first book on the international uses of 
GeoGebra as groundbreaking. In the absence of corroboration, the expert letters fail to establish that 
the beneficiary's research work is indicative of or consistent with international recognition. 
In light of the above, the final merits determination reveals that the qualifying evidence of the 
beneficiary's research, his service as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied academic 
field and his minor citation history, docs not set the beneficiary apart in the academic community 
through eminence and distinction based on international recognition, the purpose of the regulatory 
criteria. 56 Fed. Reg. at 30705. 
C. Conclusion 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented researcher, who has won the respect of his 
collaborators, employers, and colleagues, while securing some degree of exposure for his work. The 
record, however, stops short of elevating the beneficiary to the level of an alien who is internationally 
recognized as an outstanding researcher or professor. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that 
the beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. 
For the above stated reasons, the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
S U.S.c. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.