dismissed EB-1B Case: Agricultural Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 13880783 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 22, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Outstanding Professors /Researchers) 
The Petitioner, an agricultural technology company, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an outstanding 
professor or researcher in the field of agricultural engineering . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 203(b)(l)(B), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(l)(B) . 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary is internationally recognized as outstanding in his academic 
field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that the Director 
overlooked or did not properly evaluate evidence in the record, and that this evidence establishes that 
the Beneficiary qualifies under the high standards of this immigrant visa classification . 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The statute requires that beneficiaries under this immigrant visa classification should stand apart in 
their academic area based on international recognition. To establish a professor or researcher's 
eligibility , a petitioner must provide initial qualifying documentation that meets at least two of six 
categories of specific objective evidence and demonstrates the beneficiary is recognized 
internationally within the academic field as outstanding. 
Specifically, section 203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the Act provides that a foreign national is an outstanding 
professor or researcher 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 [for a qualifying position with a university, 
institution of higher education, or certain private employers]. 
To establish a professor or researcher's eligibility, a petitioner must provide initial qualifying 
documentation that meets at least two of six categories of specific objective evidence set forth at 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A)-(F). This, however, is only the first step, and the successful submission of 
evidence meeting at least two criteria does not, in and of itself: establish eligibility for this 
classification. When a petitioner submits sufficient evidence at the first step, we will then conduct a 
final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that the beneficiary is 
internationally recognized as outstanding in his or her academic field. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(ii) provides that a petition for an outstanding professor 
or researcher must be accompanied evidence that the foreign national has at least three years of 
experience in teaching and/or research in the academic field. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary received his both his Master of Science degree (2012) and Ph.D. (2015) in Biological 
Engineering from University ofc===J_He is currently employed as a "Designed Field Research 
Data Engineer" at the Petitioner'1._______J Missouri location. 
In his decision, the Director found that the Beneficiary met three of the evidentiary criteria, thus 
satisfying the initial evidence requirement, but that the totality of the record did not establish the 
requisite international recognition in his field. Upon review, we agree with the Director that the 
evidence demonstrates the Beneficiary's service as a judge of the work of others, original scientific or 
scholarly research contributions to the academic field, and authorship of scholarly articles. As he 
therefore meets the initial evidence requirements, we will consider all the evidence of record when 
conducting the final merits determination. 
In a final merits determination, we analyze a researcher's accomplishments and weigh the totality of 
the evidence to evaluate whether a petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence 2, 
that the beneficiary's achievements are sufficient to demonstrate that he has been internationally 
recognized as outstanding in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(B)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i). In this matter, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not shown the 
Beneficiary's eligibility. 3 
1 USCIS has confirmed the applicability of this two-step analysis to evaluate the evidence submitted with the petition to 
demonstrate eligibility for classification as an outstanding professor or researcher. See 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.3(B), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 A petitioner must establish that the beneficiary meets the eligibility requirements of the benefit sought by a preponderance 
of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I& N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). In other words, a petitioner must show that 
what it claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met its burden under 
the preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
3 In the final merits analysis, the Director's decision discussed the documentation relating to the Beneficiary's peer review 
activities, research contributions, published and presented work, and citation evidence, and explained why that evidence, 
as part of the entirety of the record, was insufficient to demonstrate the Beneficiaiy's recognition as outstanding at the 
international level. 
2 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that it has established by a preponderance of the evidence that "the 
Beneficiary is internationally recognized as outstanding in his academic field." The Petitioner 
contends that the Beneficiary's peer review work, service on editorial boards, and participation on 
grant review panels show that the Beneficiary is internationally recognized as outstanding in the field 
of agricultural engineering. It further states that the Director disregarded letters of support "from 
national and international experts" attesting to the Beneficiary's research contributions in the field. 
Additionally, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not properly consider the impact of the 
Beneficiary's research articles and the prestige of the journals that published his work. 
It is important to note that the controlling purpose of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) is to 
establish a beneficiary's 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. Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. 
Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 1991) (enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). Therefore, 
to the extent that the Director first determined that the evidence satisfied the plain language 
requirements of specific evidentiary criteria, and then evaluated whether that evidence, as part of the 
entirety of the record, was sufficient to demonstrate the Beneficiary's recognition as outstanding at the 
international level, his analysis was in keeping with the statute, regulations, and policy pertaining to 
the requested immigrant visa classification. 
As it pertains to the Beneficiary's participation as a judge of the work of others, the Petitioner 
submitted documentation indicating that he reviewed papers (41) for Remote Sensing, Water, 
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Sustainability, Ecological 
Economics, Environmental Modelling & Software, Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, 
International Journal of Modelling and Simulation, Open Biotechnology Journal, Hydrological 
Sciences Journal, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Agronomy Journal, Indian Journal of Soil 
Conservation, and Open Agriculture. The Petitioner also provided Scimago "Journal Rankings" 
information listing Remote Sensing as 28th among "Earth and Planetary Science" journals, Ecological 
Economics as 20th among "Environmental Science" journals, and Agronomy Journal as 41 st among 
"Agronomy and Crop Science" journals. Additionally, among "Water Science and Technology" 
journals, the Scimago information ranked Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies as 17th and 
Hydrological Sciences Journal as 36th, respectively. Furthermore, the record includes Google Scholar 
rankings listing Water as 8th among "Water Supply & Treatment" journals. 
Both initially and in response to the Director's notice of intent to deny (NOID), the Petitioner presented 
information from Publons.com listing "Agricultural Engineering" researchers in descending order 
based on the number of "Verified Reviews" they completed. The Petitioner contends that the number 
of paper reviews ( 41) the Beneficiary had performed at the time of filing the petition "places him 
within the top 7% of his field globally." The information from Publons.com, however, does not 
include the Beneficiary in its "Agricultural Engineering" researchers "Verified Reviews" results. 4 
4 For example, the initially submitted Publons.com results list Nawa Raj Baral at 33rd with 43 reviews and Massimo 
Brambilla at 34th with 41 reviews. The results presented in response to the NOTO list Massimo Brambilla at 34th with 42 
3 
Additionally, the Petitioner submitted a March 12, 2020 email to the Beneficiary, entitled "Interested 
in the Editorial Board or as an Editor" fromj I for Open 
Agriculture. I I states: "I am very happy to welcome you in our team. Below you can find 
the list of topics we have in our journal. Please, think of one or few of which you would like to be 
responsible for and let me know .... Please, also register in our editorial manager online system." 
The record also includes two additional emails (dated March 23, 2020 and April 3, 2020) fromD 
I Ito the Beneficiary, entitled "Please handle this manuscript as an Editor." These emails both 
state: "I would like to invite you to take on the above assignment as an editor. Please log onto Editorial 
Manager as an editor to view the details and PDF. Then please agree or decline this assignment." The 
Petitioner, however, did not submit evidence indicating that the Beneficiary completed these two 
editorial assignments or that he has otherwise judged the work of others in an editorial capacity for 
Open Agriculture prior to or at the time of initial filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
The record contains another email (dated September 2017) to the Beneficiary, entitled "Interested in 
serving in the Editorial Board" from~------------------~ This email 
states: "We have received your profile for the editorial board and we are happy to add you as one of 
our board members in our journals. . . . We are seeking research contribution from your scholars and 
budding researchers. Initiate your scholars to publish the papers in our group of journals and 
organizing National/International conference in your premises." The Petitioner, however, did not offer 
evidence showing that the Beneficiary has judged the work of others in his editorial position forl I I I including! !International Journal of Agriculture & Environmental Science. 
The Petitioner also provided LJ2019 webpage from the Journal of Spatial Hydrology that lists the 
Beneficiary as one of nine editors of the journal. Another web page offered by the Petitioner identifies 
the Beneficiary as a member of the editorial board for American Research Journal of Agriculture. 
Additionally, the Petitioner submitted two emails to the Beneficiary from staff at Resource (a 
magazine of the American Society of Agricultural and ~iologicj1 Engineers) di~ the agenda 
for the publication's upcoming editorial board meetings i (July 2018) andL__J (July 2019). 
The record, however, does not include evidence showing that the Beneficiary has judged the work of 
others in the aforementioned editorial positions. 
In addition to not providing evidence of the editorial work the Beneficiary completed for Open 
Agriculture, I I Journals, Journal of Spatial Hydrology, American Research Journal of 
Agriculture, and Resource, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence showing the international stature 
of these publications or that serving on their editorial boards signifies eminence and distinction based 
on international recognition. While the Petitioner has offered some information about these 
publications from their websites, USCIS need not rely on the self-promotional material of the 
publisher. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO, ajf'd 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (C.A.9). 
reviews and Samira Zareei at 35th with 33 reviews. Without information fi-om Publons.com specifically identifying the 
Beneficiary and the number of reviews he completed, the aforementioned results do not conoborate the Petitioner's claim 
that the Beneficiary falls "within the top 7% of his field globally." Furthermore, the reviewers listed in the aforementioned 
results are limited to those who enrolled in the Publons.com peer review tracking service. As such, the Petitioner has not 
shown that the scope of the researcher list it provided from Publons.com sufficiently represents the full academic field. 
4 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided a May 26, 2020 email from an Assistant Editor with 
Sustainability inviting the Beneficiary to serve as "Guest Editor to lead a Special Issue" of the journal. 
This May 26, 2020 invitation to serve as a Guest Editor for Sustainability, however, post-dates the 
filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
Regarding the Benefic · ' · · tion on a re · · 
I I gran'f"---L""""'-' ........ ......._........,._........_...........,""'"'""'..........._,""""""'............,"""'--='---'-"'-""---'-'........,"-"'----'"'-""-'-'""""""........,,............,;"'-'--'-........... ......, 
December 2018 fro 
'------------~ , United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), stating: 
I wish to express my sincere appreciation for your service on the virtual panel for the 
.__ ________ ____. program . . . . Your expertise was invaluable in the thorough 
review of the proposals submitted to this program. Your participation on the review 
panel helped us ensure that each proposal received a fair and unbiased evaluation .... 
We are grateful for your assistance and hope that you will be willing to participate in 
the peer review process in the future. 
The record also includes information from the USDA, entitled "The._l _ ___.I Peer Review Process for 
Competitive Grant Applications." This information states: 
Many competitive programs utilize a panel manager who is selected by the program 
leader to assist with administration of the program. 
The program leader and panel manager aim to assemble a diverse panel active in 
research, education, and/or extension ... related to the subject matter in question. The 
goal is to create a balanced panel with the necessary expertise to cover the range of the 
proposals, while also maintaining diversity in geographical location, institution size 
and type, professional rank, gender, and ethnicity. 
Additionally, the Petitioner presented a February 2020 letter from,.._ __ -,-___ __, associate 
professor of agricultural and biological engineering at University o_,L_r-------'-' .......... ....,ating that she has 
served as a "panel manager" for USDA'sl I grant program . .__ ___ _.farther stated: "I 
on behalf of USDA invited [the Beneficiary] to sit on the panel for reviewing and allocating fonds for 
the 2019 and 2020c=]grant proposals .... " The Petitioner, however, has not shown, for example, 
how the Beneficiary's participation on a~ I review panel sets the Beneficiary apart as outstanding 
in his field or otherwise gamers him a level of attention indicative of international recognition. 
Furthermore] bl aimed that "[ t ]he task of critically reviewing proposals and allocating fonds 
can only be accomplished successfully with the help of outstanding researchers." Likewise, in her 
July 2019 letter discussing the Beneficiary's peer review activity as a manuscript evaluator for various 
journals, I J ~ [ I I for Environmental Modelling & Software, asserted 
that she seeks "help from experts in the field who are exceptional and internationally recognized." 
Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations, however, does not satisfy a petitioner's 
5 
burden of proof Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 
F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990). 
An evaluation of the significance of the Beneficiary's judging experience is appropriate to determine 
if such evidence is indicative of the outstanding achievement required for this classification. 5 Here, 
the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's participation as a reviewer is indicative of or 
consistent with being recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic area. In many scientific 
and academic fields, peer review is a routine part of the process through which articles are selected for 
publication or presentation at conferences, and through which research projects are evaluated for 
funding. Participation in the peer review process does not automatically demonstrate that an individual 
is internationally recognized as outstanding in his academic field. Without evidence that sets the 
Beneficiary apart from others in the field, such as evidence that he has completed reviews for a 
substantial number of distinguished journals or conferences relative to others in his field, served in 
editorial positions for highly regarded journals or publications, or chaired evaluation committees for 
reputable conferences prior to or at the time of initial filing, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary's peer review experience has resulted in, or is reflective o±: recognition at an international 
level for being outstanding in the field. 
With respect to the Beneficiary's research contributions, the rel"-'-'-'r..,..__........,.....,,.........,........,l.._.,ters of support 
discussing his research projects with~---------~and 6 For exam le 
regarding the Beneficiary's research involving agricultural data modelling for the .__ __ ...,---1-----' 
I I, 7 1 I, a professor afl I University o m 
Germany, indicated that the Beneficiary "developed an innovative framework -I b -to 
incorporate all available land uses for the respective study area inl I The I I web 
application aimed to enable I I users to perform common, but complex, operations on input 
data/output data used in the model." I t further stated that 1 ~ is open to public for 
free and is available for research/educational use. As per thel., , , u u l website stats, there were 
444 users registered in 2017 from various countries ... who have appliedl I in their 
research." Whilel !asserted that he has "used the land use change concepts within thel I I I developed by [the Beneficia~is modeling research projects, the record does not show that 
the Beneficiary's work to enhanceL__J has been extensively cited by independent researchers, has 
widely influenced his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of a contribution that is recognized 
internationally as outstanding. 
5 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.3(B)(l) (stating that a beneficiary's participation as a judge should be evaluated 
to determine whether it was indicative of the beneficiary being recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area). 
6 Both I I ( currently an associate professor atl I university) an~ k currently a researcher at the 
.__ ____________ ____., have coauthored multiple research articles with the Beneficiary. I I 
indicated that he "served as [the Benr'iciary's] research supervisor for both his master and doctoral degree program at the 
University ot1 t' In addition stated that he "served as a researcher (2004-2011) and an instructor (2011-
2015) at the University otj I' Additionally, while we discuss a sampling of the letters of support, we have reviewed 
and considered each one. 
7 1 I explaine,d that thd .lis a public domain! I model that was "developed byl land his 
team" in the 1990s."" 1 ..... ':.::~::=furilier stated that while 'c=J has ~llwLride applications for numerous I I 
assessment studies (over 3,800 manuscripts have been published usingl_______J," it lacked "land use change dynamics in 
the models." 
6 
LikewiseJ l a researcher at th,--1- _______ _J Research and Development 
in Sardinia, explained that "a conventional model setu enerres hydlological response units 
by processing soils, slope, and original'---;:====;----------' data. However, [the 
Beneficiary set up the model using a modified! I layer along with soils and slope data to separately 
identify marginal and non-margina~ I response units in the model.'I I also indicated 
that the Beneficiary's "results were particularly intyestingl as [his] new targeting approach ... 
advances the science in landscape representation in the model and has high potential to be used 
in future targeting studies for researchers in different parts of the world where bioenergy crops part 
targeted on marginal lands." In addition, whilel !asserted that the Beneficiary's "simulation 
approach provides a pathway in reporting the most accurate targeting results," his statements are not 
sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's findings have affected the field of agricultural 
engineering in a substantial way that signifies international recognition or outstanding achievement in 
the academic field. 8 
With regard to the Beneficiary's work relating to the _____________ ~-~ □ 
I I a Research Hydrologist at the USDA''l....--~~--------,---.--...,.....! 
the Beneficiary "conducted an extensive research to model the impacts of seve 
conservation nractices oq water quality in one of thd~--~~ocus watersheds -
I ~I J farther asserted that "[t]he results reported by [the Benef~ic-i-ary_]_fo_r_e_a_c_h_o~f 
the seven practices provided an insight to the extent water quality is getting impacted when a specific 
management practice is implemented," he did not offer specific examples of how the Beneficiary's 
findings have been widely utilized in the agricultural industry or have otherwise influenced the field 
at a level commensurate with being internationally recognized as outstanding. 9 
Regarding the Beneficiary's work for the Petitioner,! I the company's Intellectual 
Property Scientist, indicated that the Beneficiary "is the primary inventor contact on an invention 
disclosure, entitled! t In addition,! ~: "This 
invention disclosure and the associated research contributing to developing new and innovative 
methods to clean combine derived grade yield data has significant impact on how our customers 
evaluate [ the Petitioner's] digital offerings and the value that is generated." The record, however, does 
not show that the Beneficiary's data cleaning methodology has had a meaningful impact in the 
academic field beyond the Petitioner or has otherwise been recognized internationally as outstanding 
in the agricultural industry. 
The Petitioner argues that the aforementioned letters of support describe the Beneficiary's 
"noteworthy achievements and research contributions to the field" and establish that he is 
"internationally recognized as outstanding in his academic field." The expert testimonials offered by 
the Petitioner, however, do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record 
include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Beneficiary's work is viewed by the overall 
8 According to April 2020 citation information the Petitioner submitted from Google Scholar, the Beneficiary and D 
I Is article presenting this work has received 28 citations since its publication in 2016 (including multiple self-
citations ). 
9 The Petitioner submitted April 2020 information from Google Scholar indicating the Beneficiary anol Is 
article presenting this work has received 15 citations since its publication in 2018 (including multiple self-citations). We 
recognize that research must add information to the pool of knowledge in some way in order to be accepted for publication, 
presentation, funding. or academic credit, but not every research finding that broadens knowledge in a particular field 
renders an individual's work as outstanding or internationally recognized in his academic area. 
7 
I 
I 
academic field, rather than by a solicited few, as substantially influential or otherwise indicative of 
international recognition. 
The Petitioner also maintains that the Beneficiary's publication record renders him internationally 
recognized as outstanding in his field. The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary "has published nine 
scientific papers in scholarly journals with international circulation in his field" since 2012. The record 
contains information about several of the journals in which the Beneficiary has published his work, 
including Environmental Modelling & Software, Water, and Agricultural Water Management. For 
example, the Petitioner provided Google Scholar rankings listing Water as 8th among "Water Supply 
& Treatment" journals and Agricultural Water Management as 10th among "Agronomy and Crop 
Science" journals. In addition, the Petitioner presented a webpage from the publisher of 
Environmental Modelling & Software listing the journal's "5-Year Impact Factor" as 5.093. 
Publication in a highly ranked journal in-and-of-itself is insufficient to demonstrate that a beneficiary 
is recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field. Moreover, that a publication bears 
a high ranking or impact factor is reflective of the publication's overall citation rate. It does not, 
however, show the influence of any particular author or demonstrate how an individual's research has 
had an impact within the field. As authoring scholarly articles is often inherent to the work of 
professors and researchers, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of the Beneficiary's 
articles can be an indicator to determine the impact and recognition that his work has had on the field 
and whether his articles demonstrate that he is internationally recognized as outstanding in the 
academic field. 10 
Here, the Petitioner submitted April 2020 information from Google Scholar indicating that the 
Beneficiarv's five highest cited articles, entitled 1 
I (2016), I 
(2017), I 
1(2018), 1 I I (2018), and I.____ __________ __. 
I 1(2012),eachreceived28, 17, 16, 15,and6citations, 
respectively. 11 The Petitioner did not specify how many citations for each of these individual articles 
were self-citations by the Beneficiary or his coauthors. Moreover, in response to the Director's NOID, 
the Petitioner provided an updated Google Scholar list reflecting a nominal increase of citations to the 
Beneficiary's individual articles, but the Petitioner did not indicate how many of these additional 
citations occurred in papers published prior to or at the time of initial filing. See 8 C .F .R. § 103 .2(b )( 1 ). 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided 2019 data from Clarivate Analytics regarding baseline citation 
rates and percentiles by year of publication for "Agricultural Sciences" and "All Fields." The 
Petitioner contends that, based on their citation counts from Google Scholar, "three of [the 
Beneficiary's] research publications rank within the top 10% most-cited articles among those 
published in all research disciplines as well as specifically the research discipline of Agricultural 
10 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.3(B)(l) (stating that a beneficiary's authorship of books or articles should be 
evaluated to determine whether they were indicative of the beneficiary being recognized internationally as outstanding in 
a specific academic area). 
11 The Beneficiary's remaining articles were each cited less than five times. 
8 
Sciences for their respective publishing years." The Petitioner did not indicate whether it factored in 
any self-citations in determining the three papers' percentile rankings. In addition, the Clarivate 
Analytics citation data is from 2019 and therefore does not capture citations that occurred after 2019, 
while the Beneficiary's Google Scholar citation report is dated April 2020. 12 Because the Clarivate 
Analytics data is not contemporaneous with the Beneficiary's Google Scholar data, the Petitioner has 
not shown that the former provides a proper analysis of the Beneficiary's citation record. Moreover, 
the documentation from Clarivate Analytics states that "[ c ]itation frequency is highly skewed, with 
many infrequently cited papers and relatively few highly cited papers. Consequently, citation rates 
should not be interpreted as representing the central tendency of the distribution." For the 
aforementioned reasons, the baseline citation rates and percentiles from Clarivate Analytics do not 
establish that the Beneficiary's research articles are recognized internationally as outstanding in his 
academic field. 13 
Additionally, the Petitioner submitted examples of several articles, including international articles, 
which cited to the Beneficiary's work. A review of those articles, though, does not show the 
significance of his research or demonstrate that it has widel im acted the field. 14 For instance the 
Petitioner rovided an article entitled 
in which the authors cited to the Beneficia and 's a er 
entitled 
I rs (Agricultural Water Management). The article's authors identified the Beneficiary 
and I 's paper as one of four studies which reported that ~--------- (best 
management practices) achieve better results than individual BMP's." 15 This article, however, does 
not distinguish or highlight the Beneficiary's work from the 49 other papers referenced in the article. 
(Journal of 
Cleaner Production cites to the to the Beneficiar an s a er entitled 
L..----------------------r-~=E~n~v~ir~o........,nmental Modelling & Software). 
In this article, the authors referenced the Beneficiary and.__ ___ ___,s paper, as well as papers from 
two other research teams, stating that "[i]n previous studies, some researchers, for example 
t. al. (2015 , the Beneficia an~ I (2016 , and c=1t. al. (2018b , modified 
th 
.__~=--- ..... ' but noted that these earlier studies were limited because "they can only focus on hydrologic 
and water quality aspects." This article does not differentiate the Beneficiary's paper from the 65 
other papers referenced in the article or otherwise demonstrate that his work is outstanding. 
12 The Petitioner's response to the NOID included information from Clarivate Analytics stating that its citation "data is 
updated six times a year" (every two months). 
13 According to the data rrom Clarivate Analytics, "Agricultural Sciences" papers published in 2019 receiving only two 
citations are in the top 10%. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that papers with such a citation count are necessarily 
internationally recognized in the academic field as outstanding by being among the top 10% of most highly cited articles 
according to year of publication. 
14 Although we discuss representative sample a1iicles here we have reviewed and considered each one. 
15 Specifically, the ~uthes referenced the Be:ficiary and[ . Is paper (foo~note 45) as we)l as papers by three other 
research teams, statmg: I 
[37,44-46]." 
9 
While the Beneficiary's citations, both individually and collectively, show that the field has taken 
some notice of his work, the Petitioner has not established that the number of citations received by his 
published and presented work is sufficient to demonstrate a level of attention commensurate with 
being recognized internationally in his field. See section 203(b)(l)(B)(i) of the Act. Nor has the 
Petitioner shown that the amount of citations to the Beneficiary's work represents interest at a level 
consistent with outstanding achievement in the academic field. 
In addition the record indicates that the Beneficia and two others received an 
'----------,-----.---------..------=-----=--~--___,,--------' Blue Ribbon 
Award (2017) for their.__ ___ ~website. 16 In addition to the Beneficiary's award certificate, the 
Petitioner submitted information froml !discussing id I Blue Ribbon Awards 
program: 
Thel I Blue Ribbon A wards Competition ... promotes excellence in 
informational materials which contribute to the understanding of agricultural and 
biological engineering subjects outside of the traditional classroom setting. All 
members are encouraged to submit their new extension materials for peer evaluation. 
New material is considered that was produced in the 18 months prior to the entry 
deadline, January 25. For example, educational materials created in July 2018 are 
eligible for submission in the 2020 competition. 
Winners will be recognized in print and with presentation of their Blue Ribbon 
Certificate at the Annual International Meeting. This is an opportunity to recognize 
authors who do exceptional work and provide educational leadership beyond the 
classroom. 
The information from I I is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's award is 
commensurate with "major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement in the academic field." See 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A). The Petitioner has not offered supporting evidence showing the 
Beneficiary's Blue Ribbon Award's stature in the field or its international significance. Nor has the 
Petitioner presented evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary's award is recognized beyond the 
I I at a level commensurate with being internationally recognized as outstanding in the academic 
field. 
While the evidence indicates that the Beneficiary is a skilled researcher, the Petitioner has not 
established that he stands apart in the academic community through eminence and distinction based 
on international recognition. After consideration of the totality of the evidence of the Beneficiary's 
work in the field of agricultural engineering, including evidence of his I I Blue Ribbon Award, 
his research articles, citations to those articles by others in the field, his service as a peer reviewer, and 
the opinions of experts in the field, we conclude that this documentation does not sufficiently establish 
that he has been internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher in the field. 
16 Thirteen other teams were similar! reco nized in 2017. See' 
https:/ 
b (last visited July 21, 2021). 
10 
Blue Ribbon A wards Past Winners" at 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence in the record demonstrates that the Beneficiary meets at least two of the evidentiary 
criteria, and thus the initial evidence requirements for this classification. A review of the totality of 
the evidence, however, does not establish that he is internationally recognized as an outstanding 
professor or researcher in the academic field. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated 
reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11