dismissed EB-1B Case: Agriculture

US. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and ~ationa6y Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 153(b)(I )(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
U 
obert P. Wiemann, Director 
pAdministrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Ofice on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a university. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 11 53(b)(l)(B). The petitioner 
seeks to employ the beneficiary in the United States as a research specialist in agriculture. The director 
determined that the petitioner had not established that it had offered the beneficiary a permanent job as of the 
date of filing. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits additional job letters addressed to the beneficiary and his initial acceptance of 
the job with the petitioner. We uphold the director's decision and further conclude that the petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic field, as required for 
classification as an outstanding researcher. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(B) Outstanding Professors and Researchers. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic 
area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in the 
academic area, and 
(iii) the alien seeks to enter the United States -- 
(I) for a tenured position (or tenure-track position) within a university 
or institution of higher education to teach in the academic area, 
(11) for a comparable position with a university or institution of higher 
education to conduct research in the area, or 
(111) for a comparable position to conduct research in the area with a 
department, division, or institute of a private employer, if the 
department, division, or institute employs at least 3 persons full-time in 
research activities and has achieved documented accomplishments in an 
academic field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(iX3)(iii) provides that a petition must be accompanied by: 
An offer of employment from a prospective United States employer. A labor certification is not 
required for this classification. The offer of employment shall be in the form of a letter from: 
Yage 3 
(A) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the alien a 
tenured or tenure-track teaching position in the alien's academic field; 
(B) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the alien a 
permanent research position in the alien's academic field; or 
(C) A department, division, or institute of a private employer offering the alien a 
permanent research position in the alien's academic field. The department, division, or 
institute must demonstrate that it employs at least three persons full-time in research 
positions, and that it has achieved documented accomplishments in an academic field. 
While not contested, we note that the ordinary meaning of an "offer" requires that it be made to the offeree, not 
a third party. Regulatory language requiring that the offer be made "to the beneficiary" would simply be 
redundant. Thus, a letter addressed to Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) is not a job offer within the 
ordinary meaning of that phrase. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(i)(2), provides, in pertinent part: 
Permanent, in reference to a research position, means either tenured, tenure track, or for a term 
of indefinite or unlimited duration, and in which the employee will ordinarily have an 
expectation of continued employment unless there is good cause for termination. 
On Part 6 of the petition, the petitioner indicated that the proposed employment was a permanent position. The 
petitioner submitted the job announcement for the beneficiary's job. The announcement indicates that the job of 
principal research specialist is a full-time academic, non-tenure track position. As the position is not a tenure 
track position, the petitioner must demonstrate that it is a "permanent" position as defined in the regulations. On 
September 24, 2003, the director requested "a copy of the actual offer of employment made by [the petitioner] to 
[the beneficiary] ." 
In response, the petitioner submitted a letter fro irector of International Faculty and Staff Affairs 
at the petitioning university of the petitioner's employees have "contracts 
which are renewed annually." has "what is called a 'P' appointment 
means 'permanent."' The petitioner also submitted a letter dated October 28,2003 
Professor and Head of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 
Scien university addressed to the beneficiary. The letter confirms the renewal of the 
beneficiary's appointment as a research specialist in agriculture and characterizes the position as "permanent." 
The letter continues: 
As a valued professional employee of the Department for the past nine years, we are confident 
that your appointment will continue to through the University's annual 
reappointment process since funds from Dr. research program will be adequate to 
support your position for at least the next fiv 
Finally, the petitioner submitted the beneficiary's review report, which lists his appointment type as "P." 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not submitted the initial evidence required by the regulation, 
namely an offer of employment. The director further concluded that the petitioner's definition of "permanent" 
did not satis@ the regulatory definition of "permanent," quoted above. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits the original job offer letter fiom the petitioner to the beneficiary dated June 12, 
200 1. The letter offers the beneficiary an appointment as a Research Specialist, effective August 2 1,200 I. The 
letter references enclosed information describing the general terms of employment, but that information is not 
included in tbe record. The petitioner also submitted the beneficiary's June 27, 2001 acceptance of the job 
offer. The petitioner further submitted an April 20, 2004 letter fiom Professor Jarrell addressed to the 
beneficiary confirming his "appointment to a permanent full-time position with [the petitioner] as a Research 
Specialist in Agriculture." The letter continues: 
The Board's practice is to provide for renewable 9-month, 10-month or 12-month 
appointments. Your appointment is for a renewable 9-month appointment and the "P" 
designation in the "Job typey? section of the Personnel lnformation Transmittal Report 
associated with your Notice of Appointment indicateis] the position is a permanent position. 
The position of Research Specialist in Agriculture is for an indefinite duration composed of 
successive annual renewals. The University is a public University and an arm of the State of 
IHinois. "Good cause" for termination at the University includes unsatisfactory performance. 
Due to your valuable service and the presence of funding . . ., the Department of Natural 
Resource and Environmental Sciences has no expectations of dismissing you from employment 
at this time. Your employment rights are consistent with the rights of other permanent 
academic professional staff. 
In order to assure that your position is permanent and that neither the time nor money of you, 
the University or Immigration Services is wasted in the filing of unsupportable applications for 
legal permanent resident status, the [petitioner's] campus policy requires a unit to state its 
expectations to fund a position for a minimum of five (5) years. Postdoctoral research 
associates and visiting or acting positions are specifically excluded by campus policy from 
being eligible for University sponsorship for legal permanent resident status because such 
positions, unlike yours, are not viewed as permanent. The Department of Natural Resources 
and Environmental Sciences previously stated that funding for your position is expected to 
continue for at least five (5) years and this department remains committed and supportive of 
that position. Furthermore, the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences 
expects that funding for this position will continue indefinitely due to the intrinsic need for the 
services provided via this position in connection with the ongoing work of this department. 
We note that the above letter is dated after the director's decision denying the petition. 
First, we must consider whether the terms of the beneficiary's current job were the same terms of his 
employment as of the date of filing, or whether those terms had been offered to him as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Kutigbak, 14 l&N k. 45, 49 (Reg. Comm. 1971). Second, we must consider 
whether those terms meet the regulatory definition of "permanent" quoted above. 
The only evidence that predates the filing of the petition on January 6,2003 is the June 12,2001 job offer letter. 
As stated above, the referenced attached information regarding the general tenns of employment are not part of 
the record. Thus, the petitioner has not established the terms of employment as of January 6, 2003. Nor does 
the record contain a job offer for a future position, other than the June 12,2001 letter, dated prior to January 6, 
2003. 
We acknowledge that the petitioner continues with the same job title as specified in the June 12, 2001 letter. 
Thus, it could be argued that the terms and conditions stated in the reappointment letters and the review report 
are relevant to the tenns and conditions of the beneficiary's position at the time of filing. Even if we accepted 
that an research specialist positions are "permanent" us de$ned by the petitioner, and the record contains no 
evidence that this is true, the materials that postdate the date of filing are not suficient evidence that the 
petitioner's definition of "permanent" satisfies the regulatory definition. We emphasize that, regardless of the 
petitioner's personnel practices as applied to its entire faculty, we are bound by the regulatory definition of 
"permanent." 
The petitioner does not contest that the beneficiary's job, while having the potential for indefinite renewals, has 
a specific end date. Regardless of the beneficiary's expectation for 
* 
the definition requires that 
termination must be for good cause. The appellate letter from Professo sserts that termination at the 
petitioning university can only be for good cause. The record, however, ac evidence establishing whether 
"termination" includes only terminating employment prior to the end of the employee's term or whether it 
includes a failure to renew a renewable contract. While a contract that is automatically renewed absent good 
cause, or even insufficient hnding, might be persuasive evidence in this matter, the record lacks such a contract. 
In light of the above, we uphold the director's basis for denial. 
Beyond the decision of the director, we find that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is eligible 
for the classification sought. An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of 
the law may be denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial 
in the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United Stares, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 
2001), ard. 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989Xnoting 
that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204,5(i)(3)(i) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or researcher must 
be accompanied by "[elvidence that the professor or researcher is recognized internationally as outstanding in 
the academic field specified in the petition." The regulation lists six criteria, of which the petitioner must satisfy 
at least two. It is important to note here that the controlling purpose of the regulation is to establish 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 whether a professor or researcher is deemed outstanding. 
56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (1991). The petitioner claims to have satisfied the following criteria.' 
I The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets any criteria not discussed in this decision and the 
record contains no evidence relating to the omitted criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awarh for outstanding achievement in the 
academic3eld 
On his curriculum vitae, the beneficiary listed a Peace Fellowship (1985-1989) and an Egyptian Government 
Scholarship (1989-1991). The petitioner did not submit the award letters confirming these scholarships. Rather, 
the petitioner submitted information about America-Mideast Educational and Training Services (AMIDEAST), 
the entity that administers the Peace Fellowship. The materials define the fellowships as "postgraduate 
scholarships for Egyptians." The petitioner asserted that the Peace Fellowship requires academic achievements, 
a plan of study, TOEFL scores and recommendation letters. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Cr@i of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). 
Even if the petitioner had submitted evidence confirming the beneficiary's receipt of the scholarship and the 
related assertions of the petitioner, scholarships are generally based on past academic achievement, not for 
accomplishments in a field of endeavor. While 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A) references outstanding 
achievements in one's academic field, 8 C.F.R. $204.5(i)(2) defines "academic field" as "a body of specialized 
knowledge offered for study." The definition does not include typical bases for scholarships, such as grade 
point average and class standing. It remains, academic study is not a field of endeavor, academic or otherwise. 
Rather, academic study is training for a future career in an academic field. As such, scholarships in recognition 
of academic achievement, such as grade point average, are insufficient. Moreover, only students compete for 
scholarships. Experienced experts in the field are not seeking scholarships. Thus, they are simply not 
indicative of international recognition in the field. Rather, they represent high academic achievements in 
comparison with fellow students. 
Finally, the petitioner appears to assert that the beneficiary's memberships serve to meet this criterion. 
Memberships are more properly considered under the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(ii) and will be 
discussed below in that context. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic field which require 
outstanding achievements of their members 
On his curriculum vitae, the beneficiary listed membership in Sigma Xi, the American Phytopathological 
Society, the Egyptian Phytopathological Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science 
(AAAS). The only membership certificate that the petitioner submits, however, is for AAAS. 
The petitioner failed to submit evidence of the membership requirements for these associations. Thus, the 
petitioner has not established that they require outstanding achievements of their members. Rather, the 
petitioner submitted evidence of the membership requirements for Gamma Sigma Delta. The record contains no 
evidence that the beneficiary is a member of Gamma Sigma Delta and he does not list it on his curriculum vitae. 
Even if we were to consider the materials submitted, they list several levels. The petitioner has not documented 
the beneficiary's membership level. We note that graduate students need only demonstrate a certain grade point 
and "great potential for future leadership." Thus, the record does not reflect that Gamma Sigma Delta requires 
outstanding achievements of their general membership. Moreover, "the faculty at the local chapter level" makes 
the final membership decisions. While the regulation makes no specific reference to those who judge 
membership, we cannot conclude that membership decisions made by one's own professors or colleagues 
locally are indicative of or consistent with international recognition. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Published material in professional publications written by others about the alien's work in the 
academic field Such material shaN include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translalion 
The petitioner submitted several published articles that cite the beneficiary's articles. Articles which cite the 
beneficiary's work are primarily abut the author's own work, not the beneficiary's work being cited. As such, 
they cannot be considered published material about the beneficiary's work. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individuaZly or on a panel, as the judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied academic field 
The record reflects that the beneficiary served on the thesis defense committee for a Ph.D. candidate and a 
Masters candidate. The record reflects that the petitioner served on the theses defense committees when he was 
a visiting research associate at the petitioning university. The degree candidates were students at that institution. 
While serving as an outside or external member of a thesis committee may be indicative of wider recognition, 
we are not persuaded that judging the work of students at one's own institution while on the staff of that 
institution is indicative of international recognition. Thus, this service cannot satisfy this criterion. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has refereed articles for Plant Disease and 
Mycological Research. requested that the beneficiary's advisors or 
collaborators, Professors review the articles. These professors then 
assigned the duty to the ay have attested to the beneficiary's recognition 
in his field in her request, being requested to review an article by one's own advisor or collaborator is not 
indicative of international recognition. 
Moreover, we cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to review 
submitted articfes. Thus, peer review is routine in the field; not every peer reviewer enjoys international 
recognition. Without evidence that sets the beneficiary apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he 
has reviewed an unusually large number of articles, received independent requests from a substantial number of 
journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that the beneficiary 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe alien h original scientijic or scholarly research contributions to the academic$eld. 
Obviously, the> petitioner cannot satisfy this criterion simply by listing the beneficiary's past projects, and 
demonstrating that the beneficiary's work was "original" in that it did not merely duplicate prior research. 
Research work that is unoriginal would be unlikely to secure the beneficiary a master's degree, let alone 
classification as an outstanding researcher. Because the goal of the regulatory criteria is to demonstrate that the 
beneficiary has won international recognition as an outstanding researcher, it stands to reason that the 
beneficiary's research contributions have won comparable recognition. To argue that all original research is, by 
definition, "outstanding" is to weaken that adjective beyond any usefi.11 meaning, and to presume that most 
research is "unoriginal." 
The petitioner submitted several reference letters, mostly from his collaborators or close colleagues. While such 
letters are important in providing details about the petitioner's role in various projects, they cannot by 
themselves establish the petitioner's international recognition. Simply having worked in more than one 
country and, thus, having colleagues in more than one country, cannot serve to meet the international 
recognition standard. Moreover, the opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form 
the cornerstone of a successful claim. The AAO may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements 
submitted as expert testimony. However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in 
any way questionable, the AAO is not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of 
Caron International, I9 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm. 1988). Evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the 
petition carries greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An 
individual with international recognition should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that 
recognition. 
Finally, in evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of ability, 
widespread recognition and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically 
identify contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through his 
reputation and who have applied his work are far more persuasive than letters from independent references 
who were not previously aware of the petitioner and are merely responding to a solicitation to review the 
petitioner's curriculum vitae and work and provide an opinion based solely on this review. 
aim 
obtained his Ph.D. from the petitioning university in 1991 under the supervision of Professor 
The beneficiary then joined the faculty at the airo. In 1994, the beneficiary 
e petitioning university to conduct research. Professo explains that the beneficiary's 
Ph.D. research focused on the study of "the titer and virus of small grains, 
Bmky yeilow dwarf virus [WDV], in susceptible and tolerate oat plants." The beneficiary "devised and 
maintained an aeroponic culture system for oat plants that allowed simultaneous study of virus in all parts of the 
plant" and "developed a very sensitive chemiluminescent detection method for the virus." While Professor 
notes that both studies resulted in published articles, he does not explain how this work has impacted the 
research plant pathologist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a professor at the 
of the beneficiary's coauthors, further discusses the beneficiary's Ph.D. research. 
Specifically, the beneficiary was "the cidate the effects of BYDV tolerance on vks movement and 
accumulation in oat plants." ProfeSso xplains that one of he published articles resulting from this 
work "was notable for showing how to ioactive probes to detect plant pathogens." 
Professo also asserts that the beneficiary is currently working in an area of national interest, pathogens 
of whea rfgrass, a major ornamental "crop." Professor lists the "'take-all fungus. 
Gaeumannomyces graminis" as an exampIe of a pathogen the beneficiary 1s currently studying, "with the aim of 
developing improved detection techniques and, ultimately, better disease management strategies." The 
beneficiary's approach to this issue involves extending his work on chemiluminescent detection as well as 
looking at other detection methods. The beneficiary was "the first to develop primers for use in polymerase 
chain reaction assays that could distinguish among a range of different take-all isolates." While Professor 
-0ncludes that the beneficiary has several characteristics that reflect his "potential to make a significant 
impact in the field, he does not indicate that the beneficiary has already done so. 
professor of the beneficiary's in whose laboratory the beneficiary 
abilities as a student. Professor Wilkinson further asserts that the 
beneficiary's new molecular techniques for identifying plant pathogens in vivo and in vitro, "enabled plant - -- 
pathologists in the world to diagnose &d accurately identify very important plant 
pathogens." Professor an assistant professor at the petitioning university, asserts that 
the beneficiary's findings in the and worldwide to accurately diagnose many of the 
important plant pathogens." Neither Professor dor Professor identifies scientists beyond 
the beneficiary's own collaborators applying his work. 
Profess0 ontinues that the beneficiary developed "variety-specific primers that were used with the 
(PCR) to distinguish between the varieties of Gaeumannomyces graminis." Professor 
~iikinson further asserts that this work has established the beneficiary "as a premieri scientist of this important 
genus." More specifically: 
Using several molecular techniques, [the beneficiary] has proven that the varieties tritici and 
.avenue are very similar, while the variety graminis is different and can be fiuther divided into 
several sub-varietal groups. The importance of these results is just becoming clear, as he has 
recently directed his research toward determining the basis for different host ranges among 
these varieties. His latest accomplishment is an extension of this research and deals with the 
identification and cloning of the melanin gene cluster G. var. tritici. I anticipate that, in the 
years to come, [the beneficiary] will determine how and when Gaeumannomyces fungi actually 
cause disease, how their host range is determined and most importantly, how to genetically 
control the disease. 
Finally, ~rofessorex~lains that the beneficiary has also studied We transformation of fungi using 
novel techniques." Specifically, the beneficiary "is the first to transform several Gaeumannom c ins with 
the reporter genes: green fluorescent protein (GFP), and phleomycin resistances." Professor mB xplains that these marked strains "will be used in gene disruption experiments and then in pathogen~clty and host range 
studies, which will allow more questions about take-all disease to be addressed." This work "will advance our 
knowledge of the role of melanin in a ubiquitous and very destructive pathogen like G. graminis." 
Expanding on' this discussion of the beneficiary's current work, Professo 
u 
explains that melanins are 
"dark-colored pigments produced by a range of fungi that strengthen the~r ce walls and may aid in their - penetration of host p " For example, ~rofeisor Dornier explains that some albino mukts are non- 
pathogenic. Profess0 asserts that the beneficiary "has already isolated, clone 
m for three of the enzymes In e melanin production pathway of G. Graminis." Profess 
understanding "the role of melanins in disease induction will help plant breeders de 
can be incorporated into plants to make them resistant to this fungus, and possibly others." Professor Domier 
asserts that this work has "attracted fbnding from several granting agencies." Professo 
an associate professor at the petitioning institution, asserts that a follow up 
transgenic that are resistant to take-all." 
Regarding the beneficiary's work on turf grass, ~rofessor explains that the beneficiary is working on 
the transformation of turf grass with herbicide tolerant (BAR) and Chitinase genes. Specifically, the beneficiary 
"worked on reducing the time and mts to produce transgenic turfgrass without using tissue cultures." 
Professor Babadoost asserts that the "preliminary data from his project indicate that his research will 
significantly benefit the turf and cereal industries in the US and other areas of the world." Professor Babadoost 
does not, however, asserts that the beneficiary has already significantly benefited these industries. 
student at the petitioning university, provides similar 
info IS CUSS^ a ove Professor Emeritus at the petitioning university, mostly 
and skills with little discussion of specific contributions 
to the field. 
titioner provides two letters from researchers in the field beyond the petitioning university. Professor A. 
of Genoscope in France provides general praise of the beneficiary and fails to specify any specific 
contribution to the field or explain how that contribution has already impacted the field. 
Dr.- research plant pathologist at the US, Department of Agriculture in Stoneville, 
Mississ~ppi, re1 era es e research projects discussed above and asserts that the beneficiary's results "will be - - 
used to determine the role sf melanin in defining the host range and virulence of ~aeumannokyces" and that his 
marked strains "will be used in gene disruption experiments and then in pathogenicity and host range studies." 
He does not identify any state or federal government agency or other entity in the agricultural industry already 
applying the beneficiary's work to diagnose or identify pathogens. 
We acknowledge that the beneficiary's published work has been cited, a factor which we will consider under the 
following criterion. None of the citations, however, single out the beneficiary's work beyond the typical 
progression in the field. In several articles, the beneficiary is cited as one of several articles for the same 
proposition. While other researchers in the fieid have requested reprints of the beneficiary's articles, the record 
lacks evidence that these requests are indicative of international recognition, beyond the typical interest in the 
work of others in one's area of research. 
While the beneficiary's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be shown to be 
original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the scientific community. Any 
Ph.D. thesis or research, in order to be accepted for graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and 
useful information to the pool of knowledge. The record does not establish that the beneficiary's work 
represented contributions indicative of international recognition. 
Evidence ofthe alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with international 
circulation) in the academic field 
The record contains evidence that the beneficiary has presented his work at conferences and published several 
articles, three of which have been moderately cited. While wider citation of individual articles would have 
carried more weight, we are persuaded that the beneficiary minimally meets this criterion. An alien, however, 
must meet at least two criteria to establish eligibility. While we acknowledge the connection between this 
criterion and the original contributions criterion - original contributions in science are typically published in 
scholarly articles - meeting one of the two criteria is not presumptive evidence for meeting the other criterion. 
To conclude otherwise would negate the purpose of requiring that an alien meet at least two criteria. For the 
reasons discussed above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets another criterion. 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented and prolific researcher, who has won the respect of 
his collaborators, employers, and mentors, while securing some degree of international exposure for his work. 
The record, however, stops short of elevating the beneficiary to an international reputation as an outstanding 
researcher or professor. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is qualified for the 
benefit sought. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.