dismissed EB-1B Case: Aerospace Engineering

(b)(6)
DATE: 
OCT 0 3 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
;Y,:~*;~~~!!i:!~H!m~!JJ§~!If!~ . 
U.S. CitizenshiP and J!nmigration Services 
Admi.hlstrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s .. CitiZenship :and Immf dation ..... ·. , .... gr Semces · 
Office: NEBRASkA SERVICE CENTER 'FILE: 
PETITION: lrtmiigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor ot Res¢archer 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: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclo~ed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
this is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establ.ish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied· current law or 
policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to. reconsider 
or a. motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-
290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Plea,se review tbe ForQt l-Z90lJ instruc;tiogs· 3t 
http://www.usds.gov/fotins for the latest information oil fee, filing location, and other i'eq"tlitements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rosen ____ __ 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6) · NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the immigrant vi.sa petition and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office'(AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a private employer employing at least 3 persons full-time i.n research activities and has 
achieved documented accomplishments in an academic field. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an 
outstanding researcher pu~suant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. § 11S3(b)(l)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary perma(lenHy in the U(liteo States as a 
Research Engineer (Aerospace). The director determined that the petitioner had not established that the 
b!!nefi()iary had attained the outstanding level of achievement required for classification as an outstanding 
researcher. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and evidence that was already part of the record. For the reasons discussed 
.below, the AAO concurs with the qirector th~t the petition~r has not established that the beneficiary enjoys 
international recognition as outstanding. Specifically, when the AAO simply "counts'' the evidence submitted , 
the petitioner has submitted qualifying evidence under only one of the regulatory criterion: authorship of 
sqholarly articles pursuant to 8. C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F) . As such, the petitioner failed to meet the initial 
' . 
regulatory requirements found at 8 C.F.R. § 204,5(i)(3)(i}. 
I. TheLaw 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Prioti.ty workers. "- Visas shall first be 111ade 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, 
(II) for a comparable position with a l!niversity or institution of higher 
education to conduct research in the area, or 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(III) for a comparable position to conduct research in· the atea 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 ac<::omplishments in an 
academic field. 
8C.F.R. § 204.5 states the following: 
(i) Outstanding professors and researchers. 
(1) Any United States employer desiring and intending to employ a professor or researcher who is 
outstanding in an academic field under section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Act may flie an I-140 visa 
petition for such chtssification. 
(2) Definitions . . As used in this section: 
Academic field means a body of specialized knoWledge offered for study at an accredited 
United States university or institution ofhigher education. 
* * * 
(3) Initial evidence. A petition, for an outstanding professor or researcher must be accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence that the professor or researcher is recognized internationally as outstanding 1n 
the academic field specified in the petition. ~uch evidence shall consist of at least two 
of the following: 
(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 assocmtwns in 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. i 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; 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENTDECISJON 
(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 wit}l international circulation) in the academic 
field. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien has at least three years of experience in teaching and/or 
r~search in the academic fi~ld. Experience in teaching or research while working on an 
advanced degree will only be acceptable if t_he alien hl}s 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 of teaching and/or research experience shall be in the 
form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) and shall incl!lde the n(lme, 
address, and title of the writer; and a specific description of the duties performed by the 
alien. 
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, 2010 WL 725317 
(9th Cir. March 4, 2010). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took 
issue with the AAO's procedure for evaluating evidence. In partiCular, Kazarian sets forth a tWo-part approach 
where the evidence is first. counted and then, if qualifying under two criteria, considered in the context of a final 
merits determination. 1 In reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will apply the two-part approach set 
forth in Kazarian. 
n. Analysis 
This petition was filed on May 21, 2012 to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher. Therefore, the 
petitioner must establish that the beneficiary had at least three years of research experience in his academic field 
as of that date;' and that the beneficiary's work has been recognized internationally within the field as 
outstanding. 
As a prelimi11ary issue, the petitioner has not accurately and consistently identified the beneficiary's 
''academic field." In a letter dated· May 2, 2012 subrnitted with the initial petit_ion, th_e petitioner as!;etted that 
the beneficiary's academic field is "stress concentration analysis'' or "stress/strain concetitnition and engineering 
1 The classification at issue in Kazarian, section 203(b)(1)(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. 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 iJlatter. 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
stress analysis of complex structures used in aerospace and in othet industries." In other documentation, 
however, the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary's academic field is "aerospace engineering." 
The petitioner has not established that "stress concentration analysis" or "sttess/strain concentration and 
engineering stress analysis of complex· structures used in aerospace and in other industries" constitutes an 
"academic field" as defined by the regulations. Specifically, 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(2) defines ai1 ''academic field" 
as "a body of special_i;;>;ed knowledge offered for study at an accredited United States university or institution of 
higher education." The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's murow concentration in tbe area of 
stress/strain concentration analysis is an entire body -of knowledge offered for study at an accredited United 
St;ltes university or institution of higher knowledge.2 By regulatory· definition, a body of specialized 
knowledge is larger than a very Small area of Specialization. See USCIS Policy Memorandum Evaluation of 
Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) 
Chapter 22.2, AFM ljpdate ADll-~4 (December 22, 2010). 
On appeal, the petitioner. asserts that the beneficiary's academic field is ''Aerospace Engineering within the 
area of countersunk hole research." The petitioner further asserts that the beneficiary "should not be 
compared to all aerospace engineers, but rather, to tl)ose aerospace engineers who perform research with 
respect to stress concentrations within various composite materials.;' However, the petitioner's assertion is 
unpersuasive and unsupported by legal authority. Although the petitioner cites to Chapter 22 of the 
Adjudic(ltor's Field Manu11I (AFM) to support its assertion, the AFM still refers to the statutory and 
I . . 
regulatory requirement that the petitioner demonstrate that the beneficiary is recognized irHernationaiiy as 
out~tanding in the academic field (emphasis added). Agairi, the ter~ ;'a~ademic field," as defined by the 
regulations, is larger than a very small area of specialization~ and must be broad enough to constitute an entire 
body of t<nowledge offered for study at an accredited United States university or institllfion of higher 
knowledge. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(2). The petitioner submitted no evidence that the n<;~rrow area of Specialization 
of countersunk hole research, as opposed to aerospace engineering in general, constitutes a body of 
knowledge offered for study at an accredited United States university or institution o(higher knowledge. 
Based on the above, the AAO concludes that the most appropriate description ofthe beneficiary's academic 
field is aerospace engineering. Accordingly, the AAO's analysis of whether the petitioner has established 
that the beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding will be based upon the academic field of 
aerospace engineering, not "stress concentration analysis," "stress/strail_l concentration a:nd engineering stress 
analysis of complex structures used iri aerospace and in other industries,'' or "Aerospace Engineering within the 
area of countersunk hole research." 
The remaining issue in this matter is ~hether the petitioner has demonstrated that the' beneficiary's work has 
been recognized internationally as outstanding within the academic field ofaerospace engineering. 
) 
The petitioner initially asserted that the beneficiary was submitting qualifying evidence under three of the six 
· criteria. The direc.tor determined that the petitioner had submitted qualifying evidence under one criterion'. For 
2 The AAO observes that the beneficiary received his M.S and Ph.D. degrees· in the academic field of 
Mechanical Engineering. 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
the reasons discussed below, the AAO concurs.with the director's finding that the petitioner has only submitted 
qualifying evidence under one criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of major priZ'es or awards for outstandi1;1g achievement in the 
academic field 
The petitioner has not asserted that it was submitting evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion, set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B), and the record contains no relevant evidence that relates to this 
criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic field which require 
outstanding achievements of their members 
The petitioner has not asserted that it was submitting evidence that meets the plai_n language requirements of this 
criterion, set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A), and the record contains no relevant evidence that relates to 
this criterion. 
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 
Tl:te petitioner submitted several papers that cite the beneficiary's research as one of numerous references or 
briefly discuss his research, The director concluded that the SQbrriitted evidence did not .establish eligibility 
under this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's conclusion. Therefore, the AAO 
considers this particular issue tobe abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th 
Cir. 2005)~ Hristov v. Roark, No.·09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) 
(the court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AA0). 3 
The petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements .set forth at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C). 
, Eviqence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as the fudge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied academic field 
The petitioner has not asserted that it was submitting evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion, set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D), and the record contains no relevant evidence that relates to 
this· criterion. 
3 Even if this particular issue were not abandoned, the AAO would have concurred with the director's finding 
that citations or brief references to the beneficiary's work do not constitute published material about the 
beneficiary's work (emphasis a<}ded). Articles which cite or briefly discuss the beneficiary's work are 
primarily about the author's own work or recent work in the field generally, and are not abozit the beneficiary's 
work. 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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 thelilselves be internationally recognized as· outstanding. That said, the plain language of the 
regulation does not simply require original research, but original "research comrib1,1tions." Had the regulation 
contemplated merely the submission of original research, it would have said so, and not have included the extra 
word "contributions." Moreover, the plain language of the regulation requires evidence that the beneficiary has 
made original scientific or scholarly research contribu~ions in t_he plural. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D)ol')ly 
requires service on a single judging panel. Thus, the AAO can infer that the plural in any regulatory criterion 
has meaning. In a different context, federaJ collrts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret significance from 
whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation.
4 
As claimed evidence of the· alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field, 
the petitioner submitted recommendation letters from ~ers 11nd colleagues attesting to the beneficiary's 
"original and scholarly research contribution to the field of stress concentration analysis,'' as well as evidence 
th11t .the beneficiary's work has been incorporated into 
(3d. ed. 2008). The director found that the submitted evidence did not meet the 
requirements of the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E). Upon review of the evidence and for 
the reasons discussed herein, the AAO concurs. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from .......J a physical scientist at the 
who has worked with the beneficiary and served as a committee member in the beneficiary's Ph.D. 
dissertation committee. describes the beneficiary's research focus on three dimensional stress and 
strain concentration in countersunk holes, and ass~rts th11t the beneficiary's equations "a.te both practically easy 
to use and error free." notes that the beneficiary's Ph.D. research has been incorporated into · 
a handbook "referred by aerospace engineers on a daily basis for most 
pro!Jlems that they encouMer;" and describes this as "a great achievement in one's life." also asserts 
that the beneficiary's res.earch in the areas of composite structures, fracture mechanics and Finite Element 
Analysis is ''of great value to the aerospace industry.;' does not explain with specificity h,ow the 
beneficiary's research has contributed to the academic fieid of aerospace engineering. 
The petitioner submitted two letters from Senior Research Engineer 
· 1, who knew the beneficiary as a 
master's student at md also served as a committee member for the 
states that the beneficiary's Ph.D. thesis ''qealt with solving a very 
4 See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12(D.C. Cir. MatGh Z6, 2008); Snapnames.com 
Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30; 2006) (upholding <til interpretation that the 
regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent qegree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) 
tequi_tes a single degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
important problem faced by aerospace engineers in determining the stress concentration factors in countersunk , 
hole.s." Specifically, attests that the beneficiary developed several methodologies or equations that 
allow engineers to take into account a greater number of factors in conducting stress analysis with a negligible 
error rate of less than 3%. explains that prior to the beneficiary's equations, the methods used were 
"expensive, time consuming, and had an error rate of up to 50%." further asserts that besides the 
beneficiary's Ph.D. dissertation, the beneficiary "has contributed enormously in the areas of finite· element 
methods and analysis, and composite materials and structures." hen emph_asizes the beneficiary's 
work on countersunk holes, and asserts that it "is so significant that it has been included in the latest edition of 
which is the most referred handbook by aerospace engineers 
worldwide.' a;sserts that "aerospace engineers consult the handbook regularly and have benefited from 
[the beneficiary's] research on countersunk holes," and that "[e]ilgineets rely on the equations in [the 
beneficiary's] work in our independent verification and analysis of aircraft safety." concludes that the 
beneficiary's research allows for more accutate results from a simpler computation process, which furthers the 
end goal of better aircraft designs and safety, and well as more economical manufacturing. 
letter does not describe with specificity how the beneficiary's research has contributed to the 
· academic field beyond the particular area of stress concentration factors in countersunk holes. His statemt:;nts 
· regarding the significance of the beneficiary's work as evidenced by its reference in 
ue not corroborated by objective, Independent evidence. As will be discussed below, the 
fact that the beneficiary's work has been referenced in l (3d. ed. 2008), 
supra, does not establish that the beneficiary has made original scientific or scholarly research contributions to 
the academic field. In addition, asserts in a oonclusory manner that the beneficiary "has contributed 
enormously in the area;; of finite element methods and analysis, and composite materials and structures," but 
gives no specific details as to the beneficiary's contributions in these particular areas. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from ·, Research Professor and Director of the 
who was the beneficiary's major 
professor for three courses, has worked with the beneficiary in a research capacity, and has co-allthored two 
papers with the beneficiary. tsserts that, prior to the beneficiary's Php. research, ''there was 
no design equation existed [sic] that is general and accurate to determine stress concentration factors for 
countersunk holes, unt_il [the beneficiary] solved this problem systematically and developed his equations." 
highlights the fact that the stress conce.nttation portion of the beneficiary's research was published 
in and ass.erts that "[t]he authors of the handbook seem to be so 
impressed with the practical applications of [the beneficiary's] equations, that a section on 'Countersunk Holes' 
has beet) inttOQl.lced in the latest edition of the book." letter does not describe with specificity 
how the beneficiary's research has contributed to the academic field beyond the particular area of stress 
concentration factors in countersunk holes. Moreover, his/her statements regarding the significance of the 
·reference of the beneficiary's work in (3d, ed. 2008), suptq, are not 
corroborated by objective evidence . . As will he discussed below, the fact that the beneficiary's work has been 
referenced in (3d. ed. 2008), supra, does- not establish that the 
beneficiary has made original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Director of India 
and Professor in the Department of Mecha~ical Engineering. attests that s/he has never worked 
with the beneficiary, but is familiar with the beneficiary's published research. addresses the 
beneficiary's research on countersunk holes, the three equations the beneficiary developed, and its relevance in 
the aerospace industry. asserts that the beneficiary's first equation "makes it possible" to build safer 
and lighter 
aircrafts, and reduces costs incurred due to the ability to skip or re<illce e~periiileiltal testi_ng. 
highlights the fact that the beneficiary's first equation has been incorporated into 
and asserts that he is sure that the beneficiary's second equation is ''an excellent 
candidate for inclusion in the handbook's nex~ edition." _ _ then briefly discusses the beneficiary's 
research in the areas of structural health monitoring (SHM) and selfchealing of composites, namely, the 
beneficiary's article predicting the 
states that "other researchers working in the areas ofself-healing of composite 
structures has found his research applicable to their goals." states that in his/her own research, s/he 
·has ''encountered many articles on selfchealing that have cited 
[the beneficiary's] above journal article and 
which have employed the same analysis procedure and finite element modeling methods." letter 
<ioes not <;tescribe with specificity how the beneficiary has contributed to the academic field beyortd the 
beneficiary's first equation on countersunk holes. While briefly discusses the beneficiary's second 
and third equations as well as the beneficiary's research on : 
does not specify what contributions this research has made or how it is being applied in the academic field in 
general. speculation that the beneficiary's second equation will be a "go9d candidate'; for 
publication in the next edition of ; bears no weight. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Associate Professor in the Department of 
[ ttests that s/he has never worked 
with t.he beneficiary, but is familiar with the beneficiary's published research. , asserts that 
the beneficiary has "successfully addressed various challenges encountered by aerospace engineers,'' and in 
particular, ''the stress and strain concentration on countersunk holes." asserts that the 
benefici3,ry's work "was particularly useful in defining research direction for my project which addressed 
fatigue behavior of countersunk holes iit laminated aluminum sheets.~' . highlights the 
beneficiary's first stress analysis equation and the fact that it has been included in 
then describes the beneficiary's other equations and research 
publications, and concludes that the beneficiary's research is "original and highly relevant" and "highly 
significant." While explains why the beneficiary's research is original, he does not 
explain with specificity how the beneficiary's research has contributed to the academic field in general. 
1ses gent:ral or conclusorv lan!!Uage to describe the beneficiary's research and how it is being 
applied in the field. For example, asserts that the beneficiary's work was ''particularly 
useful" in his/her own work, but fails to provide any additional details. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Assistant Director, : 
·,who worked with the beneficiary for five years at the university's 
explains his/her joint research project with the 
··beneficiary; and explains that the beneficiary "was resp~nsible for analytically substantiating the experimental 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
results and the hypothesis that I had obtained." then briefly discusses the beneficiary's Ph.D. research 
on countersunk holes and the fact that it has been referenced in . which 
characterizes as "the 'Bible' forstress concentrations by all aerospace and ot~er engineers." L 
does not explain with specificity how the beneficiary's research has contributed to the· academic field, and uses 
primarily conclusory assertions to describe the beneficiary's achievements. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Associate Professor in the 
Texas State University"San Marcos. attests that s/he has never worked with the 
beneficiary, but is "very familiar" with the beneficiary's published research. asserts that the 
beneficiary's original research has "contributed significantly to the field of stress analysis relevant to aircraft 
design and manufa~ture." explains the beneficiary's research on stress concentration in countersunk 
holes, and in particular, the beneficiary's first equation, which points out has been included ''with 
special mention" in asserts that the beneficiary's first 
equation "makes it possible for aircraft industries to have safer aircrafts, while optimizing the weight and 
reducing the need for experimental tests." asserts that the beneficiary's research areas "are highly 
pertinent and of paramount importance to aerospace research engineers around the world" and is ''directly 
applicable to his ongoing resejitch and design work for his current employer in the (also 
popularly known as '' also mentions the beneficiary's research in the areas of 
. l letter does not describe with specificity how the beneficiary'·s 
research has contriblltioned to the academic field in general, beyond the specific area of countersunk holes. 
While briefly discusses the beneficiary's other research, s/he does not specify how this research is 
being applied in the field. For instance, cites to another article on self-healing that references the 
beneficiary's work, although for a different composite material, and summarily concludes that ''[t]rom this 
article, it c11,n be seen that [the beneficiary's] journal article has application not only in the area of health 
monitoring, but to self-healing of composite aircraft structures as well_,., 
The petitioner pr()vided a letter from 
the 
, Professor and Graduate Program Coordinator at 
, who taught two courses to the benefiCiary towards his Ph.b. program. 
briefly discusses the beneficiary's academic and research capabilities, the beneficiary's 
publications, and the inclusion of the beneficiary's Ph.D. research in 
concludes: "[the beneficiary's] research achievements have already been of paramount 
importance to the aerospace and engineering industries, anci keeping in view his immense researQh cap11,bilities, I 
strongly believe that he has a great potential to make further breakthroughs in these industries.'' 
does not explain with specificity how the beneficiary's research has contributed to the academic field, and uses 
primarily conclusory assertions to describe the beneficiary's achievements. 
The petitioner provided a letter from Professor of Aerospace Engineering 
and Professor of Mechanical Engineering, and Director, Composite Structures Laboratory at the 
jittests that he has never worked 
with the beneficiary and that his comments are based upon 
the beneficiary's published research. briefly describes the beneficiary's research articles . on 
countersunk holes an<l stress concentration equations, and a$Serts that the impact of the beneficia.ry's work is 
"wide-ranging" and has resulted in the ability of aircraft engineers and designers to devise safer aircrafts, while 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
·Page 11 
optimizing the weight and reducing the need for experimental tests. mentions the-inclusion of the 
beneficiary's work in asserts that he has cited and referenced 
the beneficiary's research in three of his own publications. then briefly discusses the beneficiary's 
other research relating to composite materials. Jetter does not describe with specificity how the 
beneficiary's research has contributed to the academic field in general, beyond the specific area of stress 
concentration in countersunk holes. While briefly discusses the beneficiary's other research, he does 
not specify how this other research is being applied in the field. 
The petitioner provided a letter from , Research Professor at 
, who was a professor of the beneficiary in two courses. briefly discusses the beneficiary's 
academic capabilities, the beneficiary's master's and Ph.D. research, and the beneficiary's personal qualities. 
concludes: "[the beneficiary's] Ph.D. research has gained international recognition very recently, as 
the stress concentration equations he discovered are found to have high practical applications, especially in the 
aerospace industry. This should sum up [the beneficiary's] gteat abilities to carry out high quality research in 
the area of aerospace structural engineering." does not explain with specificity how the beneficiary's 
research has contributed to the academic field, and uses primarily conclusory assertions to . describe the 
beneficiary's achievements. 
The petitioner provided a letter from _ Lead Engineer, Structures Technology, at 
attests that he has worked with the benefiCiary fot several yeats, as the petitioning 
company provides engineering support to describes the specific aircraft 
program he worked on with the beneficiary, and asserts that the beneficiary "worked on many such problems 
[regarding fleet problems] very successfully." also briefly discusses the beneficiary's personal 
qualities and concludes: "I see a great potential in [the beneficiary] to make many more significant contri.butions 
towards the aerospace engineering community." · does .not explain with specificity how the 
beneficiary's research has contributed to the academic· field, and asserts only in a conclusory manner that the 
beneficiary has tnade "significant contributions" to the 
academic field. 
·The petitioner provided a Jetter from Professor and Chair of 1 
_ , who was the beneficiary's 
Ph.D. co-advisor, worked with the beneficiary in a research capacity at the university, and has co-authored a 
paper With the beneficiary. briefly discusses the beneficiary's research, asserts in a cortthlsoty 
manner that it "addresses the needs of aerospace engineers," and concludes with observations about the 
beneficiary's personal qualities. does not explain with specificity how the beneficiary's research 
has contributed to the academic field. 
·The petitioner provided a letter from Professor and 1 
, who was one of the beneficiary'S graduate 
professors and served on the beneficiary's, master's thesis committee. briefly discusses the 
beneficiary's research in composite laminates, common problems associated with the drilling of cornposite 
materials, and c_oncludes that the beneficiary's work "contributes to the alleviation of these issues associated 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
with composite materials." does not explain with any specificity how the beneficiary's 
research has contributed to the academic field. 
The petitioner provided a letter.from ~.who wa$ one of the beneficiary's instructors for three 
courses at the t briefly discusses the beneficiary's academic 
performance in his classes and the beneficiary's dissertation focus.' concludes that he feels the 
beneficiary is "one of our graduates whom I feel is destined to make a very positive contribution to his 
profession." does not explain with any specificity how the beneficiary's research has contributed to 
the academic field. Furthermore, speculation as to the beneficiary's potential to make future 
contributions bears no weight. 
In response to the director's request for evidence (RFE), the petitioner submitted more letters of 
recommendation. The petitioner submitted a letter from i, Professor' and the 
Uhited Kingdom. attests that he has never worked with the beneficiary, but is "very familiar" with the 
beneficiary's published research in the field of stress and strain concentrations of Countersunk holes. Dr. Bahai 
dis.cuss(!s the beneficiary's research in stress and Strain concentration of coU.ntersllnk holes, lists the three 
articles the beneficiary has published, and highlights the inclusion of the, beneficiary's work in 
which characterizes as "one of the most respected publications in the field of 
Aerospace Engineering." - -·- -·---- asserts that the beneficiary.'s equations "can now be very quickly and 
conveniently employed in the Aerospace industry, in place of aircraft vibration tests, which are expensive and 
time consuming," further asserts that 
the beneficiary's research "has broadened the ability of aircraft 
engineers and researchers to carry out stress analy~is for a wider range of angles," resi,ilting in allowing 
aerospace engineers to design aircraft more efficiently. concludes: ''[the beneficiary's] research on 
stress analysis is ground breaking, and has significantly improved the field of aircraft design." letter 
does not e~plain with specificity how the beneficiary's research has contributed to tbe acader.nic field of 
aerospace engineering beyond the specific area of stress and strain concentration of countersunk holes. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from :, professbr of Aerospace Engineering at 
attests that he has never worked ~ith the beneficiary, but is familiar with the beneficiary's 
published research. asserts that the beneficiary has made "major original and outstanding research 
contributions in the field of composite structures, which has had an impact in our research to monitor the 
structural health of various types of aircraft." In particular, focuses on the beneficiary's article on 
stress concentnition in composite laminates embedded with fiber optic sensors, which he claims "has led to 
:ipplications being developed in other areas of aircraft health monitoring." asserts that the 
beneficiary's studies. "have served as one of the starting points in my student's research." then briefly 
mentions· the beneficiary's research in the area of structural health monitoring of aircraft structures, and 
concludes tM.t "[the benefici::1ry's] original research in the areas of StrUctural Health Monitoring (SHM) has 
already made an important contribution to the Aerospace/Aeronautical Engineering community around the 
world." does not explain with sufficient specificity how the beneficiary's research has contribUted to 
the academic field. For instance, claims vaguely that the beneficiary's research ''has led to 
applications being developed in other areas of aircraft health monitoring" and has "served as one of the starting 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
I 
points in my student's research," but he does not provide any details as to how the beneficiary's research is 
aCtually being applied. Confusingly, letter focuses on the beneficiary's contribution to the field of 
, but then concludes that the beneficiary's research on has contribtit!!d to the 
academic field. 
Finally, the petitioner submittc;:d a letter from 
attests that he has never 
worked with the beneficiary, and that his letter is based upon the beneficiary's published research. 
focuses on the novelty of the beneficiary's research in the area of stress and strain concentrations in countersunk 
holes. asserts that the beneficiary's research is "so outstanding" that he a.nd other scholars in the 
field have carried out related s~dies based on the beneficiary's research. 1 explains that he has 
published two research papers with the goal "to modify the existing equation developed by [the beneficiary]." 
then concludes that the beneficiary's "original sci~ntific. contributions ... have resulted in aircraft 
to be .built to operate more efficiently, and safer." However, while, explains the novelty of the 
beneficiary's research, he does not explain with sufficient detail how the beneficiary's research has contributed. 
to the acadell1ic field in general. Other than stating that he ami other researchers have conduc;ted research 
''based on" the beneficiary's research, does not explain with specificity how he and others are 
applying the beneficiary's research to their own' work. Furthermore, asserts that he has modified 
the beneficiary's equations, which resulted in two of his own publications, but fails to explain how or why he 
sought to modify the beneficiary's equations. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self~setving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing cases). 
the Board at'so held, however: "We not only encourage, btit require the introduction of corroborative 
testimonialand documentary evidence, where available." /d. If testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, 
or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter·of Y-B-, 21 
I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
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 fotthe benefit sought. /d. The submission of letters 
from experts .supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as we have 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. SOO, 'n.2 (BIA 2008} (noting that expert opinion testimony does 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'l 
Comm 'r 1972)). 
The above letters, alone, are insufficient to establish that the beneficiary's research can be considered original 
research contributions to the academic field as a whole. More than half of the letters were written by members 
-· ------ ~ - - -------------- ---- ------- -~-- -- -- -··---~----_/ ___ _ 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
of the beneficiary's master's or Ph.D. dissertation committees, prior professors, or his immediate 
collaborators. Of the letters written by individuals who had not directly worked with the beneficiary, many 
of them contained simi,lar or even the same template langl1age, thus raising doubt as to their credibility.' 
Many letters contained primarily conclusory assertions of widespread recognition and contributions, without 
explaining in detail how the beneficiary's work has contributed to the academic field. Merely repeating the 
language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's butden of proof. 6 In addition, many of 
the letters failed to explain how the beneficiary's research has made a contribution to the academic field of 
aerospace engineering in general, beyond the specific area of stress concentration .in countersunk holes. 
Moreover, the petitioner failed to submit objective, independent corroborating evidence in support of the 
letters. The petitioner repeatedly . emphasizes the fact that the beneficiary's work has been referenced in 
(3d. ed. 2008), supra, and that this h;mdbook is a \videly"t,ised and 
respected refere.twe for aerospace engineers. :However, a careful reading of the sections apparently referencing 
the beneficiary's work fails to corroborate the claim that the inclusion of the beneficiary's work in this book 
represents original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field. The petitiol)er 
specifically highlights the following . statelllent in the preface of the book:. " 
are included in this edition. These can be useful in the study .of 
rivted structural components." The statement does not specifically identify the. beneficiary's research as 
providing the "[r]ecently developed stress concentration f(lctors" referenced above, Even assuming arguendo 
that the statement refers to the beneficiary's research, 1t only states that it "can be useful in the study of riveted 
structural components (emphasis added)." This statement falls .short of establishing that the beneficiary's 
research is useful or that it constitutes originl!-1 scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field 
as a whole. 
The petitioner also provides a copy of the actual section on 1 
supra, which references the beneficiary's res.earch One statement 
references the beneficiary's research as a string of research that has studied · 
experimentally and computationally. Another statement references the beneficiary's research 
as follows' "Based on further finite element analysis, proposed somewhat refined 
versioil.s of ." This statement only indicates that the beneficiary's research "proposed 
somewhat refined· versions" of existing equations. Again, this statement falls short of establishing that the 
5 For example, the letters from all contain similar 
or the same language with respect to Jhe discussing the beneficiary's three articles on countersunk holes, the 
citation of the beneficiary's work in , the beneficiary's article on fiber 
optic sensors being published in a prominent journal in the area of composite material, and stating that in 
their own work, they have encountered many articles on self-healing that have citid one of the beneficiary's 
· article. 
6 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cit. 1990); 
Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 
'(D.C. Dist. 1990), 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
beneficiary's research is a refined version of existing equations or that it constitutes original scientific or 
scholarly research contributions to the academic field. The book's characterization of the beneficiary's equation 
as a ''somewhat refined version" of existing equations is not consistent with the claims made by the petitioner 
and in the letters of recommendation that the beneficiary's equation represents a ground-breaking or a highly 
significant development in the problem of countersunk holes. Furthermore,_ the petitioner provided no proof that 
the beneficiary's acmal equations were cited in . 
A plain reading of the 
·statement indicates that the equations found in_the handbook are not the beneficiary's equat,imis. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 
J the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(i)(E). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or .articles (in scholarly journals with international 
circulation) in the academic field. 
The petitioner submitted several 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 only one of the six criteria that must be 
satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements for thi.s classification. As such, the petitioner failed 
to meet the initial regulatory requirements found at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). The AAO will not move to the 
final merits determination. 
ill. Conclusion 
The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary is internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher 
in the academic field of aerospace engineering. While the petitioner has shown that th~ beneficiary is a talented 
researcher who has won the respect of his professors, collaborators, and peers, the record stops short of 
elevating the beneficiary to the level of ah alien who is internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher. 
The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. 
For tbe reasons discussed above, the appeal will be dismissed. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the inm_iigration benefit so11ght S~ction 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofDtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.